Christian preachers arrested at Dearborn Arab festival
An interesting situation is developing here in Michigan. The Dearborn International Arab Festival was last weekend and the rules limited the handing out of literature to a particular section of the festival grounds. A preacher named George Saieg filed suit against those rules and the district court said that because those rules were applied to everyone regardless of viewpoint, they were a reasonable time, place and manner restriction. But the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a TRO just before the start of the festival preventing enforcement of the rules against Saieg himself but not others. Members of a second group of preachers, Acts 17 Apologetics Ministries, were arrested on Friday inside the festival grounds and charged with disorderly conduct. And without video footage of what preceded that arrest it is impossible to know whether the arrest was justified. It is not uncommon for police to use disorderly conduct charges to rid themselves of a headache for a day or two, long enough for the problem to go away, and then quietly drop the charges. Whether that is what was going on here is not known without having some video of what the men were doing prior to the arrest. But the Acts 17 folks have now released a video from the following day, when they returned and tried to hand out literature outside the festival on a public sidewalk. They were not arrested this time, but they were apparently told that they had to go at least five blocks away in order to hand out their literature. That looks to me like a clear violation of the First Amendment. In addition, one of the officers then places his hand over the camera of another man who was filming this and told him he had to stop recording what was going on. This also looks like a clear violation of the First Amendment. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smw9QuH1xkA The Thomas More Law Center represented Saieg in his suit against the rules governing the inside of the festival and they are now representing the men arrested on Friday as well. Unfortunately, both the TMLC and the Acts 17 folks are using undue rhetoric to make their case. The TMLC sent out a press release claiming that Sharia law is being enforced in Dearborn, while the Acts 17 folks claim that the Dearborn police are defending Islam against the Constitution. That kind of overblown rhetoric is likely to impugn their credibility rather than enhance it. But regardless of all the rhetoric, the video above does show clear police misconduct, in my view. It's the sort of thing the ACLU has filed hundreds of cases over on behalf of street preachers all around the country. Thoughts from the real experts on the list? Ed ___ 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.
Selling religious items
Does anyone on this list know if there is any precedent regarding a public school having students sell religious merchandise to raise money? We have a school here in Michigan where the choir has been selling items to raise money out of a catalog that is mostly made up of Christian merchandise - all kinds of items with Bible verses on them, the kind of stuff you would find in any Christian bookstore. There are some parents upset about that and my news outlet may publish something about it, but I was wondering if anyone knew of any court precedents that bore directly on this issue or would apply well? Thanks. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
AU challenges tax exempt status of Liberty University
In the wake of Liberty U pulling recognition from the College Democrats club, Americans United has written a letter to the IRS challenging their tax exempt status. The letter says: Political clubs operating on campus often endorse and work on behalf of candidates, and officially recognized clubs are eligible for funding through student-activity fees. This decision by Liberty University effectively means that only the Republican club, which works to elect Republicans, will receive funding. The university's decision offers Republican candidates a type of in-kind contribution that is not being made available to Democratic candidates. http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/au-letter-to-irs-re-liberty. pdf Any thoughts on whether they have a strong case here? Ed attachment: winmail.dat___ 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: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United
I think Brad's comparison to interracial marriage in the context of churches being forced to perform gay marriages cuts against his argument. There are certainly churches that do refuse to perform interracial marriages in this country, probably a whole lot of them. Do you know of any case in which anyone has even suggested, much less been successful in arguing, that they be forced to do so? To say that it's not a stretch to say that there are those who would support saying a church can't refuse to perform marriages of African-Americans is a far cry from showing that there is even the most remote chance of success if anyone actually tried to force them to do so. There simply is no constituency with any influence that would push such an idea, either with regard to interracial marriage or same-sex marriage. The vast majority of people who support same-sex marriage (like me) reject the idea of forcing churches to perform them and would strongly support the inclusion of explicit exemptions in any law establishing such unions. It seems to me that this is most obviously covered under the ministerial exception and I find it almost inconceivable that any court would rule otherwise. It has now been 42 years since Loving v Virginia and no one has ever attempted to do what you use as evidence of the slippery slope here. I think that tends to show just how unlikely your imagined future is. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brad Pardee Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United You're talking about different religions, though, Steve. The standard model that we see in the debate over gay rights is to compare it to the civil rights movement in the 60s. People who don't support gay marriage are characterized as being no different than people who didn't support interracial marriage. Do you think it is a stretch to say that there are those who would support saying a church can't refuse to perform marriages of African-Americans? Using the way the debate is waged as a measuring stick, it seems safe to say that it's only a matter of time before there will be those who also support saying a church can't refuse to perform commitment ceremonies of homosexuals. And fear-mongering? I can accept that we disagree on the possibility of this line of argument coming to fruition. I fully believe that your views are based on an honest assessment of what you believe to be true. But I don't think I've EVER heard the term fear-mongering used where it wasn't inferring some manner of dishonest manipulation, propagandizing, and pandering. Is that a fair assumption to make about what I wrote? I might be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm honestly speaking what I believe to be true. Disagree with me if you believe I'm wrong. I wouldn't want you to pretend to agree if you don't. But it's not fear-mongering just because we disagree on whether there is something to legitimately be afraid of. Brad - Original Message - From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:05 PM Subject: Re: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United It is quite a stretch to say someone must not discriminate in renting property or providing secular services to say that religious organizations and their officiants must perform an action like marrying two other people contrary to their beliefs. We don't force priests to marry a catholic to a jew or an orthodox rabbi to perform the ceremony between an athiest and a orthodox jew, even when the people are of different sexes. Brad is overstating the danger in the typical fear-mongering of those opposing gay marriage. ___ 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
RE: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court RulingOnMarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United
I can't even recall any situation where a church refusing to perform an interracial marriage has even become an issue. But this is almost certainly not because no church would refuse to perform such a marriage. Surely those churches identified with the Christian Identity movement would refuse to perform such a ceremony. But this sort of thing tends not to happen and I suspect it's because it would be very rare that someone would want to get married in a church that would refuse to perform their marriage (whether for racial reason or some other reason). People don't tend to pick churches at random to get married in, they get married in churches they have long affiliations with. It's pretty unlikely that someone in an interracial relationship is going to be part of a racist church. By the same token, it's also unlikely that a gay couple is going to be a part of a church that preaches against homosexuality. They are far more likely to be part of one of the many churches that take a liberal position on gay relationships, like many UCC congregations. Choosing a church to get married in tends to be a very personal matter, so it just isn't likely that someone would want to get married in a church that does not welcome them as part of their community. I think that alone makes it quite unlikely that Brad's future scenario would take place. As for Bob Jones, I think what happened there is clearly the exception. The courts have been pretty consistent in applying the ministerial exception to churches even if they have, in some cases like BJU, not been willing to extend such exemptions to all religious organizations. It has never been the case, as far as I know, that any court has ever forced an actual church to host any event or perform any ceremony under any circumstances when they have a moral objection to doing so. No court, as far as I know, has ever sought to force an anti-gay church to hire a gay minister or even a gay secretary. And as Mark said, no one has ever seriously suggested that the Catholic church be forced to give up their objection to female priests or married priests. I think the risk of forcing churches to perform any marriage at all is vanishingly small. Ed From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 4:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court RulingOnMarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United How do list members see the Bob Jones issue playing out? To the extent that gay rights issues are assimilated to issues involving racial discrimination, there seems to be a serious possibility that nonprofit institutions (including churches) that discriminate against gay relationships or against those involved in gay relationships could lose their tax exempt status. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church and other religious institutions that restrict certain roles to men have not had their tax exempt status revoked because of these gender-based practices. So perhaps Bob Jones is best seen as limited to racial discrimination. Ed suggests that there are churches that refuse to perform interracial marriages. I'm not aware of any, but that may not mean much. If Ed has specific information in this regard it would be good to hear it. For information about a recent volume of the Criswell Theological Review on interracial marriage, see criswell.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/editorialctrsp09formatted2.pdf and criswell.wordpress.com. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine _ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Ed Brayton Sent: Sat 4/4/2009 9:38 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court RulingOn MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United I think Brad's comparison to interracial marriage in the context of churches being forced to perform gay marriages cuts against his argument. There are certainly churches that do refuse to perform interracial marriages in this country, probably a whole lot of them. Do you know of any case in which anyone has even suggested, much less been successful in arguing, that they be forced to do so? To say that it's not a stretch to say that there are those who would support saying a church can't refuse to perform marriages of African-Americans is a far cry from showing that there is even the most remote chance of success if anyone actually tried to force them to do so. There simply is no constituency with any influence that would push such an idea, either with regard to interracial marriage or same-sex marriage. The vast majority of people who support same-sex marriage (like me) reject the idea of forcing churches to perform them and would strongly support the inclusion of explicit exemptions in any law establishing such unions. It seems to me that this is most obviously covered under the ministerial exception
RE: Newdow Sues To Challenge Aspects of Inauguration
I can't see any way this survives a motion to dismiss based on standing. And Newdow must know that. Ed Brayton From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:31 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Newdow Sues To Challenge Aspects of Inauguration On Monday, Michael Newdow filed a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Chief Justice from adding so help me God to the constituionally prescribed Presidential oath when swearing in Barack Obama, and to prevent clergy from offering prayers during the inaugural ceremony. Details with links to the complaint are on Religion Clause at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/12/newdow-lawsuit-challenges-inaugur al.html * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * ___ 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.
Required religious accommodation?
Liberty Counsel has filed an EEOC complaint on behalf of a woman in Florida who was instructed to answer the phone at her job by saying happy holidays but objected because her religion prevented her from contributing to the secularization of Christmas. She insisted that they accommodate her by allowing her to answer the phone by saying Merry Christmas. She was ultimately fired over it. See the press release here: http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100 http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100PRID=760 PRID=760 A legitimate case of legally required religious accommodation? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach
Bloody communists out to destroy Christianity in America! Ed Brayton From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of aa...@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach FYI, the latest addition to my website: ACLU Fights for Christians http://aclufightsforchristians.com Allen Asch Release taken from http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/acluprotectsprisonersrelig.htm ACLU Protects Prisoner's Religious Liberty For Immediate Release December 3, 2008 State Prison Officials Prevent Ordained Pentecostal Minister from Preaching TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner, an ordained Pentecostal minister, who is asking the state to respect his religious freedom by restoring his right to preach. Howard Thompson Jr. had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) for more than a decade when prison officials last year issued, without any reason, a blanket ban on all preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff. Ours is a country where people are free to express their religious viewpoints without having to fear repercussions, said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. The New Jersey State Prison may not deny its prisoners their most basic constitutional rights. Since he entered NJSP in 1986, Thompson has been an active member of the prison's Christian community, participating in and preaching at Sunday services and other religious events, teaching Bible study classes and founding the choir. His preaching has never caused any security incidents, and the prison's chaplaincy staff has actively supported Thompson and encouraged him to spread his deeply held message of faith. But in June 2007, prison officials banned all prisoners from engaging in preaching of any kind, without any warning or justification -- which they still have not given. I have a religious calling to minister to my fellow inmates, and I've done so honestly, effectively and without incident for years, Thompson said. All I want is to have my religious liberty restored and to be able to continue working with men who want to renew their lives through the study and practice of their faith. According to the lawsuit, which names NJSP Administrator Michelle R. Ricci and New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner George W. Hayman as defendants, Thompson first preached a service at NJSP over a decade ago, when he relieved the former Protestant chaplain, who had been unable to lead a scheduled service due to illness. During the next decade, before he was ordained as a Pentecostal minister, Thompson periodically preached at Sunday services, taught Bible study classes and participated in and led the prison choir he founded. During these years, Thompson received his call to ordained ministry and to preaching and leading others in worship, study, and prayer. Prisoners do not forfeit their fundamental right to religious liberty at the prison gate, said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. The prison's absolute ban on inmate preaching clearly violates the law and Mr. Thompson's right to practice his faith. Thompson, ordained in October 2000 during a service at NJSP overseen by the prison's chaplain, sincerely believes it is his religious calling and obligation to preach his Pentecostal faith and is willing to do so under the full supervision of NJSP staff. This lawsuit is the latest in a long line of ACLU cases defending the fundamental right to religious exercise, a complete list of http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/defendingreligion.htm which is available online. In 2007, the ACLU of Rhode Island prevailed in a lawsuit challenging a similar restriction on prisoner preaching, successfully overturning a statewide ban and restoring the plaintiff prisoner's right to preach during weekly Christian services. Read Howard Thompson's complaint http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/37953lgl20081120.h tml.htm and preliminary http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/37954lgl20081203.h tml.htm injunction brief online. Learn about the ACLU Program on http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/religion.htm the Freedom of Religion and Belief and the ACLU-NJ http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu-nj.org.htm online. _ Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dpicid=aolcom40vanityncid=emlcntaolcom0 010 it now. ___ 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
First amendment suit against AIG bailout
The Thomas More Law Center filed suit on behalf of a Michigan resident alleging that the recent bailout of AIG violates the establishment clause because it invests public money in the insurance company, one of whose subsidiaries markets Takaful insurance to Muslims. This is an insurance policy that operates like mutual insurance except that it forbids investments in companies that produce things like alcohol, pornography or tobacco. You can see the complaint here: http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/DepartmentoftheTreasury-Co mplaint.pdf The complaint strikes me as little more than anti-Muslim boilerplate. A press release sent out declares that this investment in AIG amounts to promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars. The complaint contains claims like these which seem legally irrelevant at best and downright silly at worst: 3. As our history reveals, this Nation was founded upon values that acknowledge the importance of religion, respect for the right of conscience, and respect for the free exercise of religion. These values, which are Christian values, are enshrined in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. 4. The Shariah-based Islamic religious practices and activities that the government-owned AIG engages in--activities that are funded and financially supported by American taxpayers,including Plaintiff, who is forced to contribute to them--are antithetical to our Nation's values, customs, and traditions with regard to religious liberty, religious tolerance, and the proscriptions of the First Amendment. These government-funded activities not only convey a message of disfavor of and hostility toward Christians, Jews, and those who do not follow or abide by Islamic law based on the Quran or the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, but they also embody actual commercial practices which are pervasively sectarian and which disfavor Christians, Jews, and other infidels, including Americans. It is clear, said (TMLC executive director Richard) Thompson, oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests. I would expect this lawsuit to be dismissed, but I'm curious to hear what the experts on the list think about it. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach
Actually, Ed was just joking. Sorry, sometimes I can't resist a little sarcasm. I gave a speech last weekend at a conference defending the ACLU against the common accusation that they are out to destroy Christianity or drive religion from the public square. Included in that speech were many of the cases that Allen Asch cites on his webpage. Ed Brayton From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 4:02 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach I assume Ed is referring t the Pentacostal minister? Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Will Linden wlin...@panix.com wrote: From: Will Linden wlin...@panix.com Subject: RE: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu, paul.finkel...@yahoo.com Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 3:44 PM Thank you for this comprehensive and sophisticated rebuttal. At 02:48 PM 12/15/08 -0500, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_0105_01C95EC4.25DEF720 Content-Language: en-us Bloody communists out to destroy Christianity in America! Ed Brayton From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of aa...@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach FYI, the latest addition to my website: http://aclufightsforchristians.comACLU Fights for Christians Allen Asch Release taken from http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/acluprotectsprisonersrelig.htmhttp://www.aclu -nj.org/news/acluprotectsprisonersrelig.htm ACLU Protects Prisoner's Religious Liberty For Immediate Release December 3, 2008 State Prison Officials Prevent Ordained Pentecostal Minister from Preaching TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner, an ordained Pentecostal minister, who is asking the state to respect his religious freedom by restoring his right to preach. Howard Thompson Jr. had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) for more than a decade when prison officials last year issued, without any reason, a blanket ban on all preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff. Ours is a country where people are free to express their religious viewpoints without having to fear repercussions, said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. The New Jersey State Prison may not deny its prisoners their most basic constitutional rights. Since he entered NJSP in 1986, Thompson has been an active member of the prison's Christian community, participating in and preaching at Sunday services and other religious events, teaching Bible study classes and founding the choir. His preaching has never caused any security incidents, and the prison's chaplaincy staff has actively supported Thompson and encouraged him to spread his deeply held message of faith. But in June 2007, prison officials banned all prisoners from engaging in preaching of any kind, without any warning or justification -- which they still have not given. I have a religious calling to minister to my fellow inmates, and I've done so honestly, effectively and without incident for years, Thompson said. All I want is to have my religious liberty restored and to be able to continue working with men who want to renew their lives through the study and practice of their faith. According to the lawsuit, which names NJSP Administrator Michelle R. Ricci and New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner George W. Hayman as defendants, Thompson first preached a service at NJSP over a decade ago, when he relieved the former Protestant chaplain, who had been unable to lead a scheduled service due to illness. During the next decade, before he was ordained as a Pentecostal minister, Thompson periodically preached at Sunday services, taught Bible study classes and participated in and led the prison choir he founded. During these years, Thompson received his call to ordained ministry and to preaching and leading others in worship, study, and prayer. Prisoners do not forfeit their fundamental right to religious liberty at the prison gate, said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. The prison's absolute ban on inmate preaching clearly violates the law and Mr. Thompson's right to practice his faith. Thompson, ordained
RE: Atheists want God out of security - Security- msnbc.com
In Georgia last year, Gov. Sonny Perdue held a public meeting to, as he put it, pray up a storm to help the drought and it worked. Kind of. There was a big storm the next day in Northern Georgia and Tennessee that brought more than an inch of rain. Unfortunately, it didn't do much to help the drought. It did, however, rip the roof off a Baptist church in Tennessee, which injured three children and sent them to the hospital. Not terribly relevant to any legal analysis, but there it is. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 8:44 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Atheists want God out of security - Security- msnbc.com The really interesting aspect of this is the way in undermines religion for those who take it seriously. Does this mean that IF there is a terrorist attack in KY that God no longer cares about Kentucky? GW Bush was arguably the most religious president to ever sit in the office; lof of good it did us on Sept. 11. This reminds me of when I first moved to Oklahoma, in the summer of 1999; there was a serious drought in the state. The Governor did not ask the people to conserve water or stop washing their cars or watering their lawns every day. Instead, he asked everyone to reserve the following Sunday to pray for rain at their church. I suppose that exempted Jews, Seventh Adventists, Moslems, and some others from worrying about the problem Alas, it also gave of fabulous proof of the efficacy of prayer. They all prayed on Sunday and guess what -- It did not rain for weeks or maybe even months. So much for the power of prayer when the government tried to commandeer religion for its own political ends. The Baptists -- of all faiths -- those who started with Roger WIlliams and were whipped and jailed in post-Revolutionary Virginia -- should have the good sense NOT to corrupt their faith by allowing politicians to score points. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Wed, 12/3/08, Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Atheists want God out of security - Security- msnbc.com To: Religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 7:01 AM http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28029857/ ___ 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.
Poway ruling
The judge in Johnson v Poway denied a motion to dismiss by the school: http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/PowayRuling.pdf It strikes me as an odd ruling in that the judge discusses Tinker and Pickering, two cases that clearly do not apply here, and only mentions Stone v Graham once, in a footnote dismissing its applicability. I'm curious to hear the reaction of the real scholars on the list. ___ 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: Defamation of Religion
Thanks for the link, Eric. This is an extraordinarily important issue that I've been writing about a lot lately and your organization's work has been excellent on it. Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:28 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Defamation of Religion I thought the list would be interested in the following article from Maclean's magazine, which describes a worrying trend in international human rights law: the increasingly accepted norm against defamation of religion. The article describes the problem in greater detail, but the short version is that several countries with stringent anti-blasphemy laws are seeking to make it a violation of international human rights norms to publish statements considered insulting to a religion (e.g. the Danish cartoons). In response to this trend, Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed legislation (HR 6146) that would prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that violate American First Amendment norms, including judgments based on blasphemy laws. The Becket Fund has already urged both presidential candidates to support Cohen's legislation. We've also published an issues brief on defamation of religion which you can find here: http://www.becketfund.org/files/a9e5b.pdf Eric Stifling free speech - globally A coalition of Islamic states is using the United Nations to enact international 'anti-defamation' rules LUIZA CH. SAVAGE | July 23, 2008 | Asma Fatima, a petite, bespectacled Pakistani diplomat in Washington, sat at the front of a crowded Capitol Hill hearing room on July 18, carefully considering whether a man seated a few places to her left on the panel should be jailed. The occasion was a panel discussion convened by a group of congressmen to educate their colleagues on the issue of religious freedom, and the man was Canadian Ezra Levant, who in February 2006 republished Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his now-defunct magazine the Western Standard, which resulted in, among other things, two complaints of discrimination before the Alberta human rights commission. One complaint was withdrawn, but the other continues. If it is upheld, Levant could face a large fine, a lifetime order not to talk about radical Islam disparagingly, and be forced to issue an apology. If Levant does not comply with these orders, he could be imprisoned for contempt of court. Fatima tried to find the right words to explain the depth of the emotions at stake. The cartoon issue really, really hurt Muslims around the world, she told an audience that included congressional staffers as well as officials from the departments of State, Justice, and the media, and various human rights advocates, including a pair of Buddhist monks in bright robes. There are certain things that should not be said. Ultimately, though, Fatima concluded that a journalist should be, as she put it off the hook. Her government has not been so generous. Pakistan and the other nations that have banded together in the Organization of the Islamic Conference have been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the United Nations to enshrine in international law prohibitions against defamation of religions, particularly Islam. Their aim is to empower governments around the world to punish anyone who commits the heinous act of defaming Islam. Critics say it is an attempt to globalize laws against blasphemy that exist in some Muslim countries - and that the movement has already succeeded in suppressing open discussion in international forums of issues such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and gay rights. The campaign gives a new global context in which to view Levant's ordeal and other recent attempts to censor or punish Canadian commentators, publishers and cartoonists. Human rights cases were brought against this magazine for the October 2006 publication of an excerpt of a book by Mark Steyn that, the complainants alleged, subjected Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt. David Harris, a former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, was sued for remarks he made on the Ottawa radio station CFRA linking a Canadian Islamic group to a controversial American organization. And in May, a Nova Scotia Islamic group filed complaints with Halifax police and the province's human rights commission against the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for a cartoon it considered a hate crime. Pakistan brought the first defamation of religions resolution to the UN Human Rights Council in 1999 - before the attacks of 9/11 and a resulting backlash against Muslims. That first resolution was entitled Defamation of Islam. That title was later changed to include all religions, although the texts of all subsequent resolutions have continued to single out Islam. The resolutions have passed the UN Human Rights Council every year since the
Lawsuit over student fees at Wayne State
A very interesting lawsuit has been filed by Students for Life, a recognized student group, against Wayne State University over the denial of student activity funds for a weeklong event the group wanted to put on. The obvious precedent is Rosenberger, but I don't know if the facts fit perfectly here (as, of course, they rarely do). Wayne State seems to have a slightly unusual system for allocating those funds. Rather than giving the same amount of funding to all recognized student groups, they have a system that allows each group to request specific funding for a specific purpose - for on campus events, travel to off campus conferences, for bringing a speaker to campus, and so forth. But the by-laws forbid the use of funds for political advocacy or to advance religion. So under Rosenberger, are those two restrictions facially unconstitutional? Or does the fact that it bans all political or religious advocacy across the board without regard to the specific viewpoint change that conclusion? Obviously, the case may well turn on a number of factual issues. First, the request was for $4000, which is a large amount of money for such requests. Second, has the Student Council approved other funds for events by other groups that might be considered political advocacy? The complaint says that the council has funded activities by pro-choice groups, but it contains no specifics. This could be a very interesting case. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
This list is for discussion of the legal and constitutional issues, not for the imagined social consequences. I'm afraid you'll have to peddle the myth that the country went to hell when we kicked God out of schools to a different (perhaps less educated) audience. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon James Klingenschmitt Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:53 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Ed writes about teaching about the Bible (as an optional elective) in public schools, the result is going to be very ugly and very expensive. Yet leading cultural indicators show that since 1960 in America, violent crime has increased by 560 percent, illegitimate birth rates have increased more than 400 percent, teen suicide is up over 200 percent, the divorce rate has more than doubled, and the percentage of families headed by a single parent has more than tripled. It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and Ed's social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and prayer OUT of public schools, that... the result has already been very ugly and very expensive. In Jesus name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that much more guidance is needed (along the lines suggested in the consensus guidelines we issued in 2000 -- The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261. What puzzles me, however, is why the State Board fails to mention the requirements for training as outlined in Section 21.549 of the Texas Bible Bill. Perhaps that is the next step... but there is no mention of it in the the board's decision this week. If the training requirements mandated by the bill are followed, then many of the problems might be avoided... But with groups out there pushing unconstitutional Bible materials (such as those at issue in the recently-settled lawsuit in Odessa) it will be difficult to monitor what is going on across the state. Charles Haynes 21.459. BIBLE COURSE TRAINING. (a) The commissioner shall develop and make available training materials and other teacher training resources for a school district to use in assisting teachers of elective Bible courses in developing: (1) expertise in the appropriate Bible course curriculum; (2) understanding of applicable supreme court rulings and current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to be taught in public schools objectively as a part of a secular program of education; (3) understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view; (4) proficiency in instructional approaches that present course material in a manner that respects all faiths and religious traditions, while favoring none; and (5) expertise in how to avoid devotional content or proselytizing in the classroom. (b) The commissioner shall develop materials and resources under this section in consultation with appropriate faculty members at institutions of higher education. (c) The commissioner shall make the training materials and other teacher training resources required under Subsection (a) available to Bible course teachers through access to in-service training. (d) The commissioner shall use funds appropriated for the purpose to administer this section. Charles Haynes The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center 555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202/292-6293 - office 703/683-1924 home office From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Brayton Sent: Tue 7/22/2008 1:56 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Having seen some of the material already at use in many Bible courses in Texas, I can only say that the State board of education is being incredibly irresponsible in not spelling out exactly what can and can't be taught in such classes. Local school districts are inevitably going to teach this course in constitutionally dubious ways without such guidance. Terri Leo claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit; not providing them is going to lead to many such suits - and sooner rather than later. They are doing the same thing the Louisiana legislature is doing with the recent academic freedom legislation, inviting local schools into a Dover trap. The result is going to be very ugly and very expensive. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G. Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:20 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Justice Brennan's well
RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
Having seen some of the material already at use in many Bible courses in Texas, I can only say that the State board of education is being incredibly irresponsible in not spelling out exactly what can and can't be taught in such classes. Local school districts are inevitably going to teach this course in constitutionally dubious ways without such guidance. Terri Leo claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit; not providing them is going to lead to many such suits - and sooner rather than later. They are doing the same thing the Louisiana legislature is doing with the recent academic freedom legislation, inviting local schools into a Dover trap. The result is going to be very ugly and very expensive. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G. Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:20 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Justice Brennan's well-known statement, concurring in Schempp, 374 US at 300: teaching about the Bible in classes in literature or history is permissible. As literature, surely teaching about the Bible is different from other literature items, distinctively involving the necessity of treating these issues: The fact that some people believe it (or some of it) is the word of God -- others believe that it is essential to understanding their religion -- others believe it is interesting literature but otherwise irrelevant -- and thinking internationally, it is one several books presenting similar issues, e.g., the Koran. Arguably, if teachers are not so advised/trained, there are indeed critical church-state issues. Dan Daniel G. Gibbens Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus University of Oklahoma -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:41 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25742567/ Joel Sogol ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Praying Parents case
Federal court in Tennessee has ruled against the school in the famous praying parents case. Ruling here: http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN109628529.PDF Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Partial dismissal in ACSI suit vs the UC system
UC press release here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary _033108.pdf Ruling here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/msjruling_033108.pdf Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Odessa Bible curriculum case settled
The case in Odessa, Texas over the constitutionality of the Bible curriculum put together by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools has been settled. The school board agreed to stop teaching the elective Bible class. I don't have a copy of the settlement yet but should have it in the next 24 hours. I'm rather disappointed personally. I really thought this case was going to do for that area of the law what the Dover case did for the intelligent design controversy and I'd hoped to write a book about it. Still, it's the right outcome. That curriculum was one of the worst examples of bad scholarship and cheap indoctrination I've ever seen. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Scalia and Motive
The very first line of his dissent in Edwards, as Douglas alludes to, seems to deny the validity of considering motive: Even if I agreed with the questionable premise that legislation can be invalidated under the Establishment Clause on the basis of its motivation alone, without regard to its effects, I would still find no justification for today's decision. But there is a second level of contradiction in that decision as well; the opinion in Edwards conflicts with his often-stated opposition to considering the legislative history of the bill. He has railed against the legitimacy of judges citing the legislative history of a bill, yet he does so in that decision. He even makes the very strange argument that those who wrote the bill were aware of the potential constitutional problems and had taken an oath to uphold the constitution, yet they passed it anyway - as though that was somehow evidence of its constitutionality. The Edwards dissent was clearly not one of Justice Scalia's stronger arguments. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:13 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Scalia and Motive I just reread Kiryas Joel getting ready for class tomorrow. Scalia's dissent insists that the law cannot be unconsitutional unless enacted for a bad motive. I had somehow not focused on this before. This is only a year after his Lukumi concurrence insisting that motive is absolutely irrelevant. And of course there are similar opinions earlier, such as his dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard. Does anyone have a theory for reconciling his Kiryas Joel opinion with the rest? For those who want to refresh their recollections, here are the key quotes from Kiryas Joel and Lukumi. Scalia both times. In order to invalidate a facially neutral law, Justice Souter would have to show not only that legislators were aware that religion caused the problems addressed, but also that the legislature's proposed solution was motivated by a desire to disadvantage or benefit a religious group (i.e., to disadvantage or benefit them because of their religion.) The First Amendment does not refer to the purposes for which legislators enact laws, but to the effects of the laws enacted: [quoting the Free Exercise Clause]. . . . This does not put us in the business of invalidating laws by reason of the evil motives of their authors. Had the Hialeah City Couoncil set out resolutely to suppress the practices of Santeria, but ineptly adopted ordinances that failed to do so, I do not see how those laws could be said to prohibi[t] the free exercise of religion. Nor, in my view, does it matter that a legislature consistes entirely of the pure-hearted, if the law it enacts in fact singles out a religious practice for specia burdens. 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: Another Michigan preference-for-the-more-religious-parent case
Eugene, if you have a copy of that ruling can you email it to me? I just checked on Lexis and didn't see it up yet. Ironically, I just finished a 3 part series on these cases for the Michigan Messenger, which drew heavily on your NYU Law Review article on the subject. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:19 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Another Michigan preference-for-the-more-religious-parent case Dik v. Dik, 2008 WL 376404 (Mich. App. Feb. 12): As to raising Emma [age 2.5 at the time], the trial court found that this sub-factor favored plaintiff based on the testimony that plaintiff had a stronger religious background and was more actively involved in bringing the minor child to church than was defendant. Because this finding was based on the record evidence, no error occurred with regard to this factor. Let's set aside the broader First Amendment questions on when a court may treat a parent worse because that parent's speech (religious or otherwise) to the child seems likely to harm the child. Here, there was no finding remotely like this. Rather, the court was simply interpreting Michigan's best-interests statute -- which requires the consideration of [t]he capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any -- as giving a preference to the more religiously active parent. Can that possibly be constitutional? Isn't this an even clearer case of religious coercion than in Lee v. Weisman, given that under this rule (which Michigan courts seem to often apply) Michigan parents know that, to maximize their chances of keeping custody of their children, they need to show a stronger religious background (presumably background would include recent religiosity as well as longstanding religiosity) and more active[] involve[ment] in bringing the minor child to church? Eugene ___ 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: A judge preferring the more religious parent
Let me just add to what Eugene says here. In numerous cases I've found over the last few weeks, a judge has been quite blatant about using such anecdotal data to justify preferring religion to non-religion. In one case the judge said: And I was a little bit distraught in finding that there was no particular affiliation with a church. Probably 95 percent of the criminals that I see before me come from homes where there's no established custodial -- or no established religious affiliation. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:04 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: A judge preferring the more religious parent Marty: I appreciate your argument, but let me probe it a little further. Say a judge says that it's in the child's best interests -- all else being equal -- to be raised a more religiously observant parent, rather than an atheist, agnostic, or someone who's not very devout. (I've found about 70 court decisions over the last 30 years that so hold, and I'm sure there are many others that aren't on Lexis or Westlaw.) And say the judge expressly says he's *not* making this decision because he thinks a religious upbringing is *spiritually* better. Rather, he thinks it's empirically more likely, based on his casual empirical observation (which is generally adequate evidence) that a religious upbringing is more likely to keep the child out of trouble with crime, unwed pregnancy, drug use, and the like. A court of appeals concludes the judge did not clearly err on the facts or abuse his discretion in applying the best interests standard to the facts -- that's the usual standard of review in such cases. I take it that under your parens patriae argument, given that it is virtually inevitable that a court will eventually be required to evaluate the 'philosophy' to which the child will be exposed, the court decision has to be upheld, right, even though it discriminates based on viewpoint and religiosity, right? After all, the judge isn't endorsing certain theological truths, just making a judgment about what's in the child's secular best interests. No constitutional problem, correct? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:06 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Law Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Volokh, Eugene Subject: Re: Shielding child whose mother is A from father's B lifestyle/ideology/religion? I don't think Eugene's test case helps us see the problem clearly in these religion disputes. In deciding the best interests of the child, it is virtually inevitable that a court will eventually be required to evaluate the philosophy to which the child will be exposed -- a philosophy that can be conveyed through words or deeds. I forget how Eugene's article came out on this, but I tend not to think there's much of a free speech problem here: It's not a penalty against the disfavored parent so much as it is the state acting in a sort of parens patriae context, making the child a ward of the state in a sense for purposes of the custody decision. The state is permitted to itself teach the child to prefer certain viewpoints -- such as that racism is bad -- and is therefore permitted to favor certain viewpoints to which the child will be exposed, as a virtual necessity of deciding what is best for the child. It would be almost perverse not to consider what the child will be taught, and exposed to, in making such a determination. (Think of our own children: yes, of course we care for their material well-being; but most of us are fortunate enough to be able to spend much more time worrying about the values and beliefs, and modes of thinking, that our children will develop -- and that's a central component of what we think about when we consider their best interests.) In any event, such viewpoint discrimination is virtually inevitable in these decisions, no matter how much it might be difficult to square with formal free speech doctrines. We can assume, at the very least, that viewpoint neutrality would never be enforced in this area -- or not in any robust way, anyway. *Even so* -- indeed, even if viewpoint discrimination is entirely legitimate in such decisions -- the Establishment Clause categorically prohibits the judge from evaluating whether the child would be better or worse off learning (or learning to reject) certain religious truths. That's simply not a subject on which the state can take any view whatsoever (for various reasons, including competence). The state can strongly espouse the view that it's bad for children to be exposed to racism; but it can't take the view that children would be better off going to church or believing
RE: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccanlifestyle?
But I hadn't already been exposed to it. For the first 8 years of my life I was raised with no religion at all. After that, not only did I have a Pentecostal stepmother, my father agreed that I would go to church with her every week (and I did, even becoming a Christian for several years). I think he did the right thing. This problem of confusion is vastly overblown, I think. There is inherent confusion when it comes to religious questions and it's true for every kid no matter their religion or lack of it. Someone raised in a Christian household is inevitably going to confront non-Christian thinking, if not because of a parent's disbelief then certainly because of encountering those of different beliefs in school or other settings. This is nothing to fear, it's a good thing that kids are exposed to a wide variety of beliefs. It certainly should not be the kind of thing that judges should seek to protect someone from. That's just not their job. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccanlifestyle? In a situation where the child has *already* been exposed to differences in outlook between the two parents (as in Ed's personal example or in Alan's), then it seems highly unlikely that anyone could show psychological injury by the child's continuing to be so exposed following a divorce. Nobody here seemed to take great exception to the New York case cited earlier that required a lapsed mother to continue raising her child in orthodox Judaism. She and her husband had agreed on this before the divorce, and the evidence showed it was the child's strong preference. Suppose the mother hadn't just lapsed, but had a Road to Damascus conversion and was now an evangelical Christian. I don't think that would change the result in the case. If the mother really wanted the child to attend Christian worship, and the child balked or started wetting the bed or gave other evidence of trauma, I doubt a court would--or should--have any hesitation in ordering her not to do it. In these cases, with such constraints in place, it becomes the constrained parent's responsibility to maintain the kind of relationship with the child that will not traumatize the child. Is there a Jewish or Christian or Wiccan way to ride a Ferris wheel? This doesn't seem to be such a hard thing to grasp, though I have no doubt such things are beyond the ken of many a person. On Jan 24, 2008 1:12 PM, Brownstein, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no clear answer to this problem - but I think part of what is troubling to me about the potential scope of these constraints on visitation orders is that they may make it difficult for the child to have any meaningful relationship with one parent. A devout individual may make his or her religious practices a regular part of life. Could the court prohibit one parent from saying a prayer before a meal if the child was present? If a Christian parent wants the child to be home on Sunday (to attend Church and to observe the Sabbath) and the other parent is an observant Jew so that if the child visited that parent on Saturday the child would necessarily be exposed to Jewish religious practices, how should a court resolve that tension. Would it be appropriate for the court to rule that only one parent could ever be with the child on weekends? Alan Brownstein From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:52 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccanlifestyle? I think Steve's message illustrates exactly the point. What's in the best interests of *the* child is a matter to be decided with reference to the particular child in question and to his/her family's unique circumstances. It is not a matter for ideology. If a child is raised in a household in which differences are extolled and exhibited, then being exposed to them post-divorce doesn't in itself seem likely to harm the child. But where a family has adhered to a particular framework, and that framework is suddenly jolted, not only by the divorce but by radical changes in what had been viewed as a fundamental aspect of child-rearing, then it seems perfectly consistent with the legal standard, psychology and the still largely accepted role of the family, for a judge to ascertain whether harm is likely to occur, and take reasonable actions to prevent harm. Imposing a Unitarian world view on, say, a Pentecostal child who had consistently been reared that way, while it may seem to Steve like a good thing, would be the worst kind of judicial bullying, as would an order for a child raised in a Unitarian household to be sent off to Catholic school, where in each case the judge reasonably
RE: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle?
I don’t think I’m confusing those issues, I’m saying that the latter issue inevitably collapses to the first. The idea that religion is to be preferred to non-religion, which is omnipresent in case after case in this area, IS an ideological predisposition, and it is one that exists without any solid evidence to support it. Likewise, the notion that it is psychologically better for a child to be exposed to only one religious viewpoint rather than several IS an ideological predisposition, and one that I am arguing may well be wrong, as it certainly was in my case. All of these things can be justified by reference to the best interest of the child, but is that justification really a valid one? Or is it merely a cover for the ideological predisposition against the non-religious? Do we really want judges violating the free speech rights and basic parental rights of a non-custodial parent, ordering them not to speak to their own child about their views on religion – as has happened in many of these cases, some of them documented by Eugene in his research – based on such flimsy ideological positions? I don’t think we do. Ed From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:50 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle? With all respect, I think Ed is confusing two different issues. Of course, a judge that awards custody or enters an order *because one parent's religion is better than the other's* is not supportable, and may have constitutional implications. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a considered judgment (presumably based on some psychological evidence) that without such an order the child will suffer psychological trauma. It's just not worth sacrificing the child to vindicate an ideological predisposition. On Jan 24, 2008 1:00 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could not agree more with Steve Jamar on this. The assumption that being exposed to different ideas is a bad thing is simply wrong. I know this from my own experience, having been raised by a Pentecostal and an atheist (who are still married after many decades). A judge making a custody decision might well have looked at that and awarded custody to my mother to avoid having me confused and that would have been very bad thing indeed (there was no custody battle, we could live with whichever parent we chose and could change our mind at any time, and I chose to live with my father, who remarried to my Pentecostal stepmother). Not only was it not unhealthy to be raised in that allegedly confusing environment, I think it was a key to the development of traits I consider immensely valuable. And the real problem here, as always, is just how prone this kind of thing is to bias toward religion. Imagine a circumstance where a couple has raised a child without any religion or church attendance, but in the course of the divorce one of them has become a religious convert and wants to take their child to church with them. In case after case where the circumstances are the opposite, where the child has gone to church during the marriage but one parent is not religious and does not intend to take them to church, judges will consider this a strong point in favor of the religious parent getting custody on the grounds that it will continue his previous religious upbringing. But in this situation, where the previous upbringing was not religious, it is highly unlikely that a judge would consider this a point against the religious parent. Having now looked up an enormous number of these cases, it is obvious to me that the bias is nearly always in favor of religion and the pretenses on which that is based are applied in a highly selective manner to reach that outcome. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:33 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle? I'm quite troubled by the idea that children are developmentally harmed by exposure to more than one idea, religious or otherwise. And that a judge can decide that only one religion is not harmful, and decide which one. How about -- step parents -- that is confusing. Or remaining single. That is confusing. Or sexual orientation. Or one is an environmentalist minimalist and the other a hummer -level consumerist. Would it be the same if one was a catholic and the other episcopalian? or two sects of judaism? or two brands of evangelical christian? or mormon and 7th day adventist? Barring a child from knowing a parent strikes me as not in the best interest of the child. As with anything else, there are, of course, limits -- but merely practicing a garden-variety of paganism or wiccan hardly seems dangerous to the mental
RE: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle?
The more I dig into cases similar to this the more I think that judges should not be allowed to consider religion at all. It's just too ripe for abuse, too open for a judge to be prejudiced against one party to the case because of their religion or (more commonly) their lack of it. I am astonished at the fact that appeals courts have refused to overturn such rulings even when they've been outrageously wrong. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:22 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle? A recent New York state appellate court decision upheld a father's petition for overnight visitation, but stressed that this was done only because the father and his fiancee agreed to refrain from exposing the child to any ceremony connected to their religious practices, and because the Family Court could mandate, in the visitation order, protections against her exposure to any aspect of the lifestyle of the father and his fiancée which could confuse the child's faith formation. I tracked down the trial court decision, and it turns out the father's and his fiancée's lifestyle and religious practices were Wiccan. The trial court concluded that the child (age 10 at the time of the appellate court's decision) is too young to understand that different lifestyles or religions are not necessarily worse than what she is accustomed to; they are merely different. For her, at her age, different equates to frightening. So when her father and her father's fiancé[e] take her to a bonfire to celebrate a Solstice, and she hears drums beating and observes people dancing, she becomes upset and scared. There was no further discussion in the trial court order of any more serious harm to the child, though of course there's always the change that some evidence was introduced at trial but wasn't relied on in the order. Given this, should it be permissible for a court to protect the child from becoming upset and scared by ordering that a parent not expos[e the child] to any aspect of [the parent's] lifestyle ... which could confuse the child's faith formation? Eugene ___ 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.
Cross on private property
Here's a new situation in Michigan: http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/333667146558130.bsp A guy wants to build a large, illuminated cross on his property overlooking Lake Michigan, but the city considers the property to be a detached front yard and thus residential property, and it is against zoning regulations to put up such structures, or any such structure higher than 14 feet, on residential property. Does the RLUIPA apply to individuals on residential property as well as to churches? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Cross on private property
I answered my own question - yes, the RLUIPA applies to individuals as well as churches. The question here is whether a court would view this as a substantial burden. The 6th circuit has interpreted that rather narrowly, most recently in a case involving the Okemos Christian Center and a zoning regulation that limited the size of a school they want to build on church grounds. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 3:07 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: Cross on private property Here's a new situation in Michigan: http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/333667146558130.bsp A guy wants to build a large, illuminated cross on his property overlooking Lake Michigan, but the city considers the property to be a detached front yard and thus residential property, and it is against zoning regulations to put up such structures, or any such structure higher than 14 feet, on residential property. Does the RLUIPA apply to individuals on residential property as well as to churches? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
A new religion and custody case
With a bit of a spin. A father in Kentucky is arguing in court that a custody ruling requiring that his son continue to go to Catholic school is unconstitutional under the KY constitution. Section 5 of that constitution says: Nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed. Very interesting case. The mother apparently wants the child to go to Catholic school, so it would seem that the constitutional argument would apply to both sides. http://www.wlky.com/news/14981101/detail.html Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: A new religion and custody case
I don't think there's a constitutional problem with a court saying that the custodial parent gets to decide where to send the child to school. But is there a constitutional problem with a court saying, I'm giving custody to this parent because they'll send the child to a Christian school? I recognize that this is usually couched in terms of one factor among many, but I've also come across many custody rulings where the judge made it quite clear that this was the primary reason, even cases where that one factor outweighs incredibly serious factors against giving that parent custody. And I've found very few cases where an appeals court overrules such a ruling. It seems clear to me that there is at least some degree of constitutional problem with such a ruling. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:13 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: A new religion and custody case Suppose the order simply said The choice of school is for the parents, not for the court. These parents can't agree, so the court is forced to decide which parent gets to exercise the parental right to choose. The court finds that it is in the best interest of the child for the mother to have custody and for the mother to choose the child's school. The two sentences of preamble pretty much just describe what courts have to do in every custody case. Hard to find a constitutional objection to that, but same result. Quoting David Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just looking at the text, it's not clear to me that it would be violated by a state's allowing a custodial parent to send a kid to a school of that parent's choosing. A noncustodial parent would not get her way (or not during the time the other parent had custody under a joint arrangement), but she wouldn't be sending the kid to an objectionable school. (A noncustodial parent would have a textually better argument if she were forced to pay some of the tuition for an objectionable school the other parent sends the kid to.) David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 3:27 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: A new religion and custody case With a bit of a spin. A father in Kentucky is arguing in court that a custody ruling requiring that his son continue to go to Catholic school is unconstitutional under the KY constitution. Section 5 of that constitution says: Nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed. Very interesting case. The mother apparently wants the child to go to Catholic school, so it would seem that the constitutional argument would apply to both sides. http://www.wlky.com/news/14981101/detail.html Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. 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: A new religion and custody case
But I guess the real question is, can the court choose that parent based on the fact that they are religious and the other is not. That's really the crux of the issue. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:30 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: A new religion and custody case I agree that the court cannot order either parent to send the child to Catholic school. The court apparently did that here; it may be an error of form rather than substance, until and unless the custodial parent changes her mind. I also agree the court cannot award custody to the parent who will choose Catholic school because she will choose Catholic school. The problem with either of these is not just the very specific Kentucky clause, but the basic principles of religious liberty; the court cannot choose the child's religion. All the court can choose is which parent will be empowered to decide in the event that divorced or never married parents can't agree. Quoting Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't think there's a constitutional problem with a court saying that the custodial parent gets to decide where to send the child to school. But is there a constitutional problem with a court saying, I'm giving custody to this parent because they'll send the child to a Christian school? I recognize that this is usually couched in terms of one factor among many, but I've also come across many custody rulings where the judge made it quite clear that this was the primary reason, even cases where that one factor outweighs incredibly serious factors against giving that parent custody. And I've found very few cases where an appeals court overrules such a ruling. It seems clear to me that there is at least some degree of constitutional problem with such a ruling. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:13 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: A new religion and custody case Suppose the order simply said The choice of school is for the parents, not for the court. These parents can't agree, so the court is forced to decide which parent gets to exercise the parental right to choose. The court finds that it is in the best interest of the child for the mother to have custody and for the mother to choose the child's school. The two sentences of preamble pretty much just describe what courts have to do in every custody case. Hard to find a constitutional objection to that, but same result. Quoting David Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just looking at the text, it's not clear to me that it would be violated by a state's allowing a custodial parent to send a kid to a school of that parent's choosing. A noncustodial parent would not get her way (or not during the time the other parent had custody under a joint arrangement), but she wouldn't be sending the kid to an objectionable school. (A noncustodial parent would have a textually better argument if she were forced to pay some of the tuition for an objectionable school the other parent sends the kid to.) David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 3:27 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: A new religion and custody case With a bit of a spin. A father in Kentucky is arguing in court that a custody ruling requiring that his son continue to go to Catholic school is unconstitutional under the KY constitution. Section 5 of that constitution says: Nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed. Very interesting case. The mother apparently wants the child to go to Catholic school, so it would seem that the constitutional argument would apply to both sides. http://www.wlky.com/news/14981101/detail.html Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. 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 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
Need an expert on religion in custody cases
I'm writing an article on religion in custody cases. The jumping off point will be a Michigan court of appeals ruling that came down last week, which can be found here: http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20071227_C27801 6_61_278016.OPN.PDF It's clear from the ruling that religion was not the only factor, but it was clearly a significant one. I'd like to discuss the issue of religion in custody cases more broadly and I need some expert analysis on the subject. I've already contacted Eugene off list, but he is too busy at the moment. Is there anyone else who has done some writing on that subject who might be willing to do a brief interview on it, either by phone or email? I need this in the next 24 hours if possible. Please contact me off list. Or perhaps I should just post some questions about it here and see what kind of discussion ensues. Here are some starting questions I have in mind: 1. How common is this sort of thing in custody cases? 2. What are the chances of winning an appeal? It seems to me that appeals courts generally give extraordinary discretion to the lower court judge in such cases. 3. Do such rulings create 1st amendment problems? 4. Are atheists or the non-religious generally discriminated against in such cases? 5. How have the appeals courts or the Supreme Court handled such cases in the past? 6. If you think the current system is unfair, how could it be improved? Please don't respond unless you are okay with being quoted in my article. Thanks. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?
This reminds me of Justice Jackson's dissent in Zorach, where he reacted with eloquence and anger to Justice Douglas' suggestion in his majority opinion that the only way to justify opposition to the released-time program was anti-religious bigotry: As one whose children, as a matter of free choice, have been sent to privately supported Church schools, I may challenge the Court's suggestion that opposition to this plan can only be antireligious, atheistic, or agnostic. My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar. Coincidentally, I just used that quote in an article on a new released-time program today. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:26 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Congressional resolutions: threat or menace? I don't know anything about the intensity or sincerity of their personal faith, but these nine alleged anti-Christian bigots include a Baptist, two AME (African Methodist Episcopal), two Presbyterians, two Episcopalians, one Unitarian, and one Jew. So 7 are Christian and at least 3 (the Baptist and AME) are probably evangelical Christians. There are reasons other than anti-Christian bigotry for these votes, like the greater religious content in the Christmas resolution. PC does exist, and there is anti-Christian animus, but it is not lurking behind every disagreement. Quoting Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have learned of yet another threat to our inclusive society Dec 12, 2007 - Bill Action http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-15Scheduled for Debate: H.J.Res. 15: Recognizing the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States... This bill has been added to a schedule of legislation to be considered for debate, or has been recommended by a committee to be considered. (You are seeing this event because you are tracking http://www.govtrack.us/congress/subjects.xpd?type=crsterm=ReligionReligio n) This was passed on Monday. It went by voice vote, so those THEOCRATS who want to FORCE everyone to buy live-cut trees (it praises them right in the Whereas, so we know what THEY are really after) did not even have to put their names on record. If we raise the alarm, it may wake up those people who waste their priorities worrying about triviality like the Protect America Act, so we can make sure that the Senate buries this outrage as it did last year. Meanwhile, Get Religion notes: Of the nine representatives, all Democrats, who voted against the Christmas resolution, seven supported both the Ramadan and Diwali measures. Those seven were Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke, both of New York; Diana DeGette of Colorado; Jim McDermott of Washington; Bobby Scott of Virginia; and Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey, both of California. Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida did not vote on the Diwali resolution, and Rep. Barbara Lee failed to record a vote on the Ramadan measure. Of course, this could not possibly mean anything, since PC does not exist and there is no anti-Christian animus anywhere. ___ 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. 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: Pagan religion
I noticed many years ago that pagan had largely replaced secular humanist as the religious right's favorite phrase for Them. In the 80s, secular humanist was the ubiquitous word for those unnamed evil people who will destroy everything good and godly about America. Then somewhere along the line it was replaced with pagan. In both cases, it is used in that context to mean nothing more than those who are not us. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cogan, Susan L. Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:15 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Pagan religion On 12/18/07 7:32 AM, Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I guess the Pagans I know would disagree with this almost as much as they disagree about the exact doctrine of Paganism or as Christians disagree about various Christian doctrines. I have noticed that conservative Christians refer to anyone not me as a pagan. It can get confusing since there is a large and growing portion of the population who consider themselves pagans complete with prayers, rituals and religious education for the children. Pagan does not mean just not me or just not monotheists. The Roman and Greeks were described by Christians as pagans, -- but they surely had religious beliefs and so far as I recall did not call themselves pagans. Modern neo-pagans are definitely religious. It's a religion. Not all neo-pagans are Wiccan, but all Wiccans are pagans. I've never met one that was fussy about capitalization, though the word is often capitalized. Pagans are not all atheists. Almost no neo-pagans are atheists. There are a few who consider the Goddess and God to be archetypes without an actual physical existence. They are technically atheists. And I saw no one here asserting a trademark. As to capitalization -- depends on the usage, doesn't it. Steve On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Will Linden wrote: At 06:28 PM 12/16/07 -0800, you wrote: There is no religion of Paganism. Pagans are defined by what they are NOT. (And as a poster on Magicknet said, I might as well call myself Not Tom Mix. that's false if you are talking about modern neo-pagan goddess worshipers. If you object to that, you can start by getting atheists to stop using pagan and heathen. I am sure they will be cooperative as soon as you tell them they are violating your trademark. atheists kind of like heathen because it alliterates so well with hellbound. Net.gossip is now giving its attention to Sharkey the Impaler announcing that he is running for governor of Minnesota as the Vampyre's Witches and Pagans Party. (Any pagans present go yell at him, not me... http://johnathonforgovernor.us), with a platform which calls for the public impalement of convicted terrorists. I found on reading his agenda that he proposes to erect the Wall of Religious Beliefs in the Capital. This wall will have everything from the Wiccan Rede to the 10 Commandments. I say he should go for it. So, is this project considered sufficiently nondiscriminatory? Or would it be assailed as an establishment of religion, as opposed to irreligion? Or does the aim of extolling religious freedom constitute an overriding secular purpose? he should throw in some quotes by Bertrand Russell and H.L. Mencken and he'll be covered. I'd vote for some of the passages where they are wickedly funny at the expense of religionists. It would provide a humor balance that's going to be absent in a display of religious quotes. Susan ___ 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: Happy Festivus!
I think Green Bay has hit upon the ideal solution to the annual battles over nativity scenes on public property. I think the court can fix the problem by declaring two things: 1. the government cannot fund such displays. 2. if a private group is allowed to put up a display for their religious holiday, then the government has created a limited public forum and all groups must be allowed equal access to put up their own. No more battles over whether a given display has a sufficient number of secular symbols mixed in to dilute the message of endorsement. No more battles over what constitutes a secular symbol, e.g. a menorah or a star and crescent as in the NY city school case. No more problems with endorsement of any kind because every display is privately owned and maintained and all private groups have equal access. Problem solved. Thoughts? Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:26 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Happy Festivus! http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFON SECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULT http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFO NSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULT Dec 16, 1:58 PM EST Festivus pole proposed at Green Bay City Hall Advertisement GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) -- The putting up of a nativity scene at Green Bay's City Hall has prompted a tongue-in-cheek request from a suburban man for permission to display a Festivus pole on the overhang of the building's northwest entrance. The Festivus holiday created by author Daniel O'Keefe during the 1970s and popularized by comedian Jerry Seinfeld two decades later is celebrated by some both in earnest and jest on Dec. 23. The request by Sean Ryan of Allouez was made during the weekend after Green Bay City Council president Chad Fradette received the go-ahead last week from the city's advisory committee to install a nativity display at City Hall. Fradette said he proposed the display in response to criticism of a nativity display at a city park in nearby Peshtigo. A practicing Catholic who would prefer to see no religious displays at a government office, Ryan said his request to put up an undecorated six foot aluminum pole was intended to showcase how deciding what religions to include in the display can turn to the absurd. I was turning over how extreme things could get and how loosely things could get interpreted, Ryan said. The real feat of strength would be for the mayor to stand up and say this is absurd, Ryan added. Let us keep nativity scenes where they belong in the churches, in our homes and in our hearts. On Friday, a Wiccan pentacle was put up at the Green Bay City Hall consisting of an evergreen wreath encircling a gold five-pointed star. Wicca is a nature-based religion based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons. But variations of the pentacle not accepted by Wiccans have been used in horror movies as a sign of the devil. Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt said items besides the nativity scene to be displayed need to associated with a religion, and the Festivus pole is just pop culture. This is kind of making a laughing matter of something that's rather serious, he said. The mayor said silly antics would not help resolve the questions facing the City Council on Tuesday, when it is scheduled to take up the matter. The mayor said he plans to forward some preliminary guidelines to the council Monday, including a limit on the time period for the displays and how to determine if a display is representative of a religion. This isn't an area that we have a lot of expertise, Schmitt said. --- Information from: Green Bay Press-Gazette, http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com === Buy your Festivus Pole at http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/Festivuspoles.htm http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/Festivuspoles.htm ___ 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: Happy Festivus!
Then the answer is no as it does not fit the purpose of this limited public forum. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:33 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Happy Festivus! Suppose a group wants to put up a display that's not associated with any religion or anti-religion? Advertising, for example? Susan Ed Brayton wrote: I think Green Bay has hit upon the ideal solution to the annual battles over nativity scenes on public property. I think the court can fix the problem by declaring two things: 1. the government cannot fund such displays. 2. if a private group is allowed to put up a display for their religious holiday, then the government has created a limited public forum and all groups must be allowed equal access to put up their own. No more battles over whether a given display has a sufficient number of secular symbols mixed in to dilute the message of endorsement. No more battles over what constitutes a secular symbol, e.g. a menorah or a star and crescent as in the NY city school case. No more problems with endorsement of any kind because every display is privately owned and maintained and all private groups have equal access. Problem solved. Thoughts? Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:26 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Happy Festivus! http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFON SECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULT http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFO NSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULT Dec 16, 1:58 PM EST Festivus pole proposed at Green Bay City Hall Advertisement GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) -- The putting up of a nativity scene at Green Bay's City Hall has prompted a tongue-in-cheek request from a suburban man for permission to display a Festivus pole on the overhang of the building's northwest entrance. The Festivus holiday created by author Daniel O'Keefe during the 1970s and popularized by comedian Jerry Seinfeld two decades later is celebrated by some both in earnest and jest on Dec. 23. The request by Sean Ryan of Allouez was made during the weekend after Green Bay City Council president Chad Fradette received the go-ahead last week from the city's advisory committee to install a nativity display at City Hall. Fradette said he proposed the display in response to criticism of a nativity display at a city park in nearby Peshtigo. A practicing Catholic who would prefer to see no religious displays at a government office, Ryan said his request to put up an undecorated six foot aluminum pole was intended to showcase how deciding what religions to include in the display can turn to the absurd. I was turning over how extreme things could get and how loosely things could get interpreted, Ryan said. The real feat of strength would be for the mayor to stand up and say this is absurd, Ryan added. Let us keep nativity scenes where they belong in the churches, in our homes and in our hearts. On Friday, a Wiccan pentacle was put up at the Green Bay City Hall consisting of an evergreen wreath encircling a gold five-pointed star. Wicca is a nature-based religion based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons. But variations of the pentacle not accepted by Wiccans have been used in horror movies as a sign of the devil. Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt said items besides the nativity scene to be displayed need to associated with a religion, and the Festivus pole is just pop culture. This is kind of making a laughing matter of something that's rather serious, he said. The mayor said silly antics would not help resolve the questions facing the City Council on Tuesday, when it is scheduled to take up the matter. The mayor said he plans to forward some preliminary guidelines to the council Monday, including a limit on the time period for the displays and how to determine if a display is representative of a religion. This isn't an area that we have a lot of expertise, Schmitt said. --- Information from: Green Bay Press-Gazette, http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com === Buy your Festivus Pole at http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/Festivuspoles.htm http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/Festivuspoles.htm ___ 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
RE: An email of possible relevance
One of the seemingly infinite number of circulated emails full of feigned outrage and false claims on this issue that litter our inboxes. This list is the last place I would have thought I'd see one forwarded. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:26 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: An email of possible relevance This is apparently a myth. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp; among other things, it includes what appears to be a photo of the inscription, which actually quotes a different line from the speech -- a line that's not followed by so help us God. Eugene _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G. Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ucla. edu Subject: An email of possible relevance SHALL WE HIRE A MONUMENT ENGRAVER TO GO TO ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND ADD THE MISSING WORDS ? A MESSAGE FROM AN APPALLED OBSERVER: Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington , DC I got an unexpected history lesson Because I'm a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, Veterans of the greatest war, with their families. It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there. On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor : Yesterday, December 7, 1941-- a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked. One elderly woman read the words aloud: With confidence in our armed forces, with the abounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. Wait a minute, she said, they left out the end of the quote.. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with so help us God. Her husband said, You are probably right. We're not supposed to say things like that now. I know I'm right, she insisted. I remember the speech. The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away. Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself,Well, it has been over 50 years she's probably forgotten. But she had not forgotten. She was right. I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading --- Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley. It's all about the battle at Iwo Jima . I haven't gotten too far in the book. It's tough to read because it's a graphic description of the WWII battles in the Pacific. But right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt 's speech to the nation ends in so help us God. The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved it on the memorial could have fooled me. I was born after the war.! But they couldn't fool the people who were there. Roosevelt's words are engraved on their hearts. Now I ask: WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY? Send this around to your friends People need to know before everyone forgets. People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning. He still wants to be...and He always will be! If you agree, pass this on. If not, May God Bless YOU! http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=102287rui=83657392 Free Animations for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here! _ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 12:12 PM ___ 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: Michigan RLUIPA suit
It appears from the article, though, that this suit is being filed just over the municipality demanding that they file for a variance, not for refusing the variance. Does that change the analysis at all? Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 10:17 AM To: Paul Finkelman Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Michigan RLUIPA suit In the absence of evidence that significant numbers in a local congregation were doing what Marci describes (driving in before sundset and parking for the entire Sabbath), the reliance on parking regs would be pretextual. See Orthodox Minyan v. Cheltenham Twp. Zoning Board, 552 A.2d 772 (Pa. Comw. Ct. 1989), where the Township mechanically applied its zoning rule of 1 parking space for every 3 seats to the Orthodox Minyan. No variance; irrelevant that most of the Minyan walked to services. So the Minyan leased enough parking spaces from neighbors to meet the formula. Not good enough; you have to own the spaces and they have to be adjacent to your property. Finally the Minyan agreed to build enough parking spaces on their own property. Ah ha says the Township: all those parking spaces imply lots of traffic and you will create a traffic problem. Permit denied. The court overturned the zoning board on state law grounds. This is the most detailed example I know, but at the RLUIPA hearings, there was a fair amount of testimony about deliberate exclusion of Orthodox places of worship. They did not all have such happy endings. Quoting Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am sure it must because it is late at night and I have been traveling all day, and so I am fogged in, but I can't quite figure out how a parking regulation would be used against Orthodox Jews wanting to build in the neighborhood since, as Doug points out, they don't drive to services. I hope Doug can elaborate on this one. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/09/07 10:54 PM Where are they parked? Around the building on their own property? Or around the property on public streets that must be shared with others? Reasonable parking regs generally prevail, as Ed says. But there are also cases where parking regs are plainly being used to get rid of somebody -- the most flagrant examples are Orthodox synagogues, where the worshipers can't drive on the Sabbath and so they never bring their cars at the same time. And it is easy to imaging parking regs where we might not be sure of motive, but the burden on the religious group is severe and the public benefit is trivial. Quoting Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unless they are worshipping cars, or unless their rites include the heavy parking of cars on streets, the religious order will have to comply with local parking regulations. Where was the Thomas More Center when the Mormons in Virginia were fighting this issue? (Silly question -- the Thomas More Center probably didn't exist prior to 1983.) There are safety and environmental concerns. This is an old zoning issue. Are there special conditions for this case that might change the outcome? Ed Darrell Dallas Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message http://www.journalgroup.com/Northville/6343/lawsuit-accuses-township-of- religious-harassment[1[1]] The Thomas More Law Center is filing suit against a Michigan municipality for demanding that a religious order apply for a zoning variance because of all the cars parked at and around their facility. The TMLC says this violates the RLUIPA. Thoughts? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[2[2]] 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 Links: -- [1] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalgroup.com%2FNorthvill e%2F6343%2Flawsuit-accuses-township-of-religious-harassment [2] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailm an%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw - End forwarded message - 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 Links: -- [1] /horde/services/go.php?url=http
Michigan RLUIPA suit
http://www.journalgroup.com/Northville/6343/lawsuit-accuses-township-of- religious-harassment The Thomas More Law Center is filing suit against a Michigan municipality for demanding that a religious order apply for a zoning variance because of all the cars parked at and around their facility. The TMLC says this violates the RLUIPA. Thoughts? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Michigan RFRA?
Does anyone on the list know if Michigan has passed their own version of RFRA? If so, can you tell me where to find it in the Michigan code? Thanks. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed)
Yep, one and the same. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:35 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed) Isn't Sen. Ernie Chambers the Chambers from Marsh v. Chambers? First he tries to get prayers out of the state legislature, then he up and sues God. Well then. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Linden Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:24 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed) I assume this would be thrown out for the same reasons as the suit filed against Satan and his staff (CORPUS JURIS HUMOROUS). There is no clear ground of jurisdiction, since no allegation of residence in Douglas Country has been made, and there are no directions for service of notice of proceedings. In addition, should this give rise to a class action, there is no assurance that the petitioner would fairly represent the interests of the class. At 09:02 PM 9/17/07 -0500, you wrote: I'm embarrassed to admit that this guy is a long-term state senator here in Nebraska. This does, however, seem to be the biggest possible interaction between religion and law. From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_fe_st/odd_suing_god_2http: //news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_fe_st/odd_suing_god_2 LINCOLN, Neb. - Fed up with the threats, tired of natural disasters, the state's longest-serving state senator is using his legal muscle against who he says is the culprit - God. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued the Almighty in Douglas County District Court last week. Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants. Chambers also says God has caused fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes. He's seeking a permanent injunction against God. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1012 - Release Date: 9/16/2007 6:32 PM ___ 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...
Is this really the appropriate list for such preaching? I know it damn well isn't the appropriate list to be declaring some members of the list mentally ill. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lofton Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 5:20 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Recent Threads / True Mental Health... Simple indeed -- if you have faith. And all those secular shrinks have been doing a great job, right? In fact, unbelief IS a mental illness since it denies reality, God's reality, the only reality there is. We all live in God's world and are governed by His Law, whether you believe this or not. God's Truth is not dependent upon the belief of a man to be true. You don't have to believe in Hell to go there. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican -Original Message- From: Susan Freiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:38 am Subject: 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?nc id=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. _ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail http
RE: Recent Threads / True Mental Health...
The first amendment applies to what the government can do, not to what is acceptable on a private listserv. This list is for discussion of religion and law, not for you to harangue and proselytize. Surely that shouldn't need to be explained on this list of all places. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lofton Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:51 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Recent Threads / True Mental Health... Chill, Ed, it's called free speech, the free exercise of religion, First Amendment, remember? Be more tolerant, please...JL 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: Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 6:20 pm Subject: RE: Recent Threads / True Mental Health... Is this really the appropriate list for such preaching? I know it damn well isn't the appropriate list to be declaring some members of the list mentally ill. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of John Lofton Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 5:20 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Recent Threads / True Mental Health... Simple indeed -- if you have faith. And all those secular shrinks have been doing a great job, right? In fact, unbelief IS a mental illness since it denies reality, God's reality, the only reality there is. We all live in God's world and are governed by His Law, whether you believe this or not. God's Truth is not dependent upon the belief of a man to be true. You don't have to believe in Hell to go there. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican -Original Message- From: Susan Freiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:38 am Subject: 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?nc id=AOLAOF0002000970
RE: Church is not an option
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. attachment: winmail.dat___ 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: Unfavorable feelings towards ideologies
Rick Duncan wrote: If a professor expresses in class his disdain for homophobes or for fundamentalists or for persons who base their worldviews on religious superstition as opposed to secular first principles, does the professor not create a hostile and unwelcoming environment for students who belong to conservative religious faiths. Is this consistent with all the rhetoric we hear in Academe about how intellectual diversity is essential to a rich educational experience for all our students? But is this not true of any professor expressing virtually any position? If a professor expresses his disdain for PETA because of their attempts to stop medical research on animals, does he not create a hostile and unwelcoming environment for students who belong to PETA? If a professor expresses his disdain for socialism, does he not create a hostile and unwelcoming environment for students who may be socialists? One of the absolutely inevitable realities of going to college, at least to any college worth going to, is that you're going to run into ideas you don't like as well as those who don't like your ideas. I would submit that this is a very good thing, healthy both for society and for each individual student to have their views challenged. Where it becomes genuinely discriminatory, it should of course be treated as such. But the mere expression of disapproval for an idea is no evidence at all of discrimination. I am an outspoken advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians and I routinely criticize many people for their expressions of homophobia. On the other hand, I'm also an outspoken advocate of freedom of speech and have routinely defended the right to express anti-gay views in a variety of cases (Harper v Poway, the Boissoin case in Canada and many others). There simply is no intrinsic logical link between criticizing a set of beliefs and discriminating against those who hold them; one can quite easily criticize someone for their beliefs and staunchly defend their right to express them. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:37 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Unfavorable feelings towards ideologies I appreciate Eugene's distinction between hating the sin and hating the sinner, but it is very easy to overlook this distinction when one is creating a classroom atmosphere or even grading papers. If a professor expresses in class his disdain for homophobes or for fundamentalists or for persons who base their worldviews on religious superstition as opposed to secular first principles, does the professor not create a hostile and unwelcoming environment for students who belong to conservative religious faiths. Is this consistent with all the rhetoric we hear in Academe about how intellectual diversity is essential to a rich educational experience for all our students? Should support for same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships be a condition for successful completion of a degree in social work? Should it be relevant to your grade on a paper that focuses on family policy and law? My son is a senior in high school (a national merit qualifier), and we are not even considering secular colleges for his education. Why go to a place where you are hated? But notice this is all the more reason why state scholarship programs should not exclude religious colleges or pervasively sectarian religious colleges from participating. Separate and equal is one thing; separate and unequal is another thing indeed. Rick Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence. --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst. -- Id. _ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48518/*http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/;_yl c=X3oDMTE3NWsyMDd2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDY2FyLWZpbmRlcg -- Autos new Car Finder tool. ___ 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: Unfavorable feelings towards ideologies
Rick Duncan cites the following from the WorldMag article: Other prominent voices from the academy have suggested that the anti-evangelical bias does not likely translate into acts of classroom discrimination. Tobin intends to test that claim with a subsequent survey of 3,500 students in the coming academic year. My guess: You can't have this much smoke without some fire, he said. French can readily testify to that. Before the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal lawsuit last year, Georgia Tech University maintained speech codes forbidding any student or campus group from making comments on homosexuality that someone might subjectively deem offensive. What's more, students serving as resident advisors were required to undergo diversity training in which moral positions against homosexual behavior were vilified and compared to justifying slavery with the Bible. I think this is backwards. I fully agree that the Georgia Tech speech code was unconstitutional and I cheered when the ADF filed suit against it and when the school settled the case and did away with the code. But this is not evidence for the claim that disagreement with evangelical views leads to discrimination, for two reasons: First, because not all evangelicals hold such views or would violate such speech codes. Second, because regardless of whether such speech codes are a good idea (and again, I regard them as a very bad thing, clearly unconstitutional and would like to see them all done away with at every public university in the country), the causality may go the other way - the fact that so many evangelical Christians take anti-gay positions is one of the reasons why so many disapprove of their religious ideology and criticize it. Again, there simply is no intrinsic or logical link between disagreeing with or criticizing an ideology and discriminating against it. Don't we hear this from many Christians, that just because they think homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean they want to discriminate against homosexuals? Why, then, should we equate thinking Christianity is wrong with wanting to discriminate against Christians? Nor should we casually equate wanting to rid a diverse academic community of anti-gay bigotry with wanting to discriminate against Christians. While, again, I think all such speech codes are wrong and unconstitutional, I think one should accurately portray the motivations of those who support them. Their motivation is to protect gay and lesbian students from bigotry that makes them feel dehumanized. The fact that their desire to protect gays in this manner happens to affect primarily Christian students (and, I would suspect, Muslim students as well) is merely a function of the undeniable fact that it is precisely those groups that are most likely to take anti-gay positions. But such policies are not passed for the purpose of attacking Christianity; they are passed for the purpose of protecting gays. That they affect Christians more than non-Christians is merely a function of the popularity of anti-gay views among Christians (or at least a certain subset of them). Again, I don't think those motivations make such codes legitimate, but let's at least state them accurately. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: EC Compelling Interest
I've always thought that the special situation analysis was little more than the Court admitting that they do not wish to go where logical reasoning demands they go so they're arbitrarily declaring an exception to the rule. I do think that Art's example is a good one; I don't have any problem with military chaplains paid for by the government for that reason. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:32 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: EC Compelling Interest Art's example is a good one, but I have usually thought of military chaplins as involving a special situation pursuant to which the EC is not violated (as opposed to a situation in which the EC is violated, but justified by a compelling interest in protecting the spiritual needs of military forces). Is there really a compelling interest in supplying chaplins for hundreds of thousands of military stationed in California, or New Jersey, or Virginia, or Nebraska? See also Chambers (not a compelling interest for legislative prayer case, but rather a special rule involving a special situation which, due to history tradition, does not trigger the EC). Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about hiring chaplains for the armed forces? In a message dated 7/22/07 5:34:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The tough question is to come up with a concrete example of where some compelling interest would indeed be in play. Rick, what examples did you have in mind? ** 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence. --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst. -- Id. _ Looking for a deal? Find http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47094/*http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oD MTFicDJoNDllBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHBvcwMxMwRzZWMDZ3JvdXBzBHNsawNlbWFpbC1uY20- great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. ___ 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.
Southern Illinois settles CLS case
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=120067 SIU has apparently decided to grant official recognition to the CLS chapter there rather than appeal the 7th circuit case they lost to the Supreme Court. I think that's the right outcome. Are there other cases similar to this other than the ones involving Hastings School of Law and the University of Wisconsin? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
NCBCPS Case
The ACLU of Texas filed suit this week against the Odessa schools over their use of the NCBCPS curriculum in an elective Bible course. This curriculum has received a great deal of criticism (warranted, in my view) over both its inaccuracy and its sectarian nature. You can see the full complaint at http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/religion/odessa_complaint.pdf. I would like to do with this case essentially the same thing I did with the Dover intelligent design case, which is to cover it in great detail from start to finish on my blog. If there is anyone on the list who is going to be involved in the case directly and therefore have easy access to the briefs, filings, expert reports and so forth, or who knows someone who does and would be willing to give me access to them, please contact me off list. Thanks. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit
I wrote about this today after seeing it on Howard Friedman's blog. What jumps out at me is the lengths the two cities, particularly Duchesne City, went to in order to preserve exclusive access for their own preferred religion to have such monuments. I hope we can all at least agree that if you're going to allow such monuments to go up on public property, allowing only one religion to place such monuments on public property and no other religion is a clear establishment clause violation. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:50 PM To: Religionlaw Subject: The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit Received from another listserv: The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit: Summum -- a religion that supports both mummification http://www.summum.us/mummification/ and masturbation http://www.sexualecstasy.org/divinemasturbation.php -- had the brilliant idea to approach towns in Utah that displayed Ten Commandments monuments to ask for equal time to display monuments to the Seven Aphorisms of http://www.summum.us/philosophy/principles.shtml Summum. Pleasant Grove, Utah simply said no in response to the request, and today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/ Circuit directs the entry of a preliminary injunction requiring the municipality to allow the display of the Summum monument. You can access the ruling at this link http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-4057.pdf . Duchesne City, Utah was equally unenthusiastic about the prospect of a Summum monument, but instead of merely saying no the municipality thought it would be beneficial to transfer its Ten Commandments monument and the patch of public parkland on which it resides to private ownership. Duchesne's actions make this case a bit more complicated, but the Tenth Circuit today holds that Duchesne is not necessarily absolved of liability on Summum's claim for injunctive relief. You can access the ruling at this link http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/05/05-4162.pdf . In press coverage of today's rulings, The Salt Lake Tribune provides a news update headlined 'Seven Aphorisms' equal to 10 http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5688321 Commandments, appeals court rules. And two Saturdays ago, The Deseret Morning News published articles headlined Thou shalt not http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660209584,00.html ... underestimate impact of the Ten Commandments and Displays a source http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660209598,00.html of friction. Posted at 10:50 PM http://howappealing.law.com/041707.html#024368 by Howard Bashman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue 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.
RE: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
Im confused by this ruling. They denied the little sister's motion to intervene, but also upheld the dismissal on grounds of mootness and voided the whole case. Does that mean the case just goes away now or do the plaintiffs have some recourse to start over at the district court? Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:24 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case Today, in a procedural move that only lawyers could love, the US Supreme Court granted cert and then ordered the 9th Circuit to dismiss as moot a case challenging school rules on student anti-gay religious expression. However parallel claims by the student's sister are still in the lower courts. For details of the complex procedural posture of the case and its lower court history, see this Religion Clause blog posting on Tyler v. Poway School District: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/03/us-supreme-court-dismisses-sc hool-t.html Howard Friedman ___ 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: What War on Christmas? ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, I also saw last month that Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ added to the misinformation in his article at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaySekulow/2006/11/28/the_aclu_targets_christians (not only does the title of Jay Sekulow's article add to the misinformation, that article includes a claim that the ACLU has a never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life.) I've never understood why people who should know better still frame a disagreement about the meaning of the Establishment Clause as something like targeting Christians. Or, really, I'm afraid I DO understand. I certainly understand: that kind of simplieminded boogeyman-building is how you raise money. If the statement was accurate (something like the ACLU strongly supports the exercise of religious expression in the public square as long as the forum is open to everyone but sometimes goes a little too far while opposing all instances of government endorsement of religion or favoritism toward one religion) it just wouldn't scare the bejeezus out of people and prompt them to open up their checkbooks. Ed Brayton (and yes, I'm well aware that you can find the same kind of simpleminded rhetoric from many on the other side as well) ___ 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: What War on Christmas? ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree!
Paul Finkelman wrote: on the ACLU reprenting Chritinians -- I am not where I can do the research but I would assume the ACLU was amicus if not actually lead counsel in many Jehovah's Witnesses cases (Barnette I think) and the unemployment compensation cases involving 7th Day Adventists. I am also pretty certain that plaintiffs in Engle v. Vitale included Christians As were nearly all the plaintiffs in McLean, Edwards and Kitzmiller, the three big evolution cases. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Cobb County evolution disclaimer case settled
Got a phone call from one of the attorneys in the case telling me that Selman v. Cobb County Schools, an evolution disclaimer case, has been settled in favor of the plaintiffs. AU press release should be out soon. It says, in part: In an agreement announced today, Cobb County school officials state that they will not order the placement of any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action. School officials also agreed not to take other actions that would undermine the teaching of evolution in biology classes. When this case was remanded back to the district court, the judge decided to hold the trial all over again and also to reopen discovery and allow expert witnesses. I suspect that had a great deal to do with the school being willing to settle the case given the outcome in the Dover trial last year. This comes one day before the one year anniversary of the ruling in Kitzmiller v. DASD. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RLUIPA and light pollution?
Here's an interesting situation I'd like to get some opinions about. http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061209/NEWS01/612090325 A church in Palm Desert, CA, has a giant lit cross that apparently violates the local light pollution ordinances (it's about 6 times brighter than the zoning laws allow). According to Phil Plait (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/09/science-versus-religion/), an astronomer, it's causing problems for the Mt. Palomar space telescope, and apparently Federal law requires that all such lights within 45 miles of the observatory be shut off at night. A law professor from USC says that the RLUIPA prevents any enforcement of those statutes, but that strikes me as unlikely. Any thoughts? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Lawsuits against SYATP.
Kimberlee Wood Colby wrote: The DOE guidelines certainly have helped the SYATP situation, but there are a lot of school administrators who are: 1) still afraid of the ACLU, etc., filing a lawsuit if theyallow any religious activity; 2) haven't kept up on the developments in the law since they were in education college in the '70s (and who can blame them); or 3) are simplyhostile to religion. All 3 factors contribute to the annual problems around SYATP. Buta problemneverthelessexists. But it seems to me that if one is going to take the position that this sort of thing occurs because school administrators are so afraid of ACLU or AU lawsuits, then one obvious way not to encourage such reactions is to make it clear that the ACLU and AU are perfectly fine with this event. By using such general and exaggerated rhetoric suggesting that those bad anti-religious forces (and we all know who they are, wink wink) think SYATP is unconstitutional and want to stop it, doesn't that just encourage more of that unjustified fear? That's why such inflated rhetoric is dangerous. How many times have we all heard from TV preachers that the Supreme Courts "took God out of schools" (when in fact they only took mandatory religious exercises out of schools) or some similar rhetoric? It seems to me that the groups that people mistakenly think are opposed to this kind of event have been careful to say the opposite (as in the DOE document from 1995). And while I am in complete agreement with the ADF on both the constitutionality of SYATP events and the various ancillary issues (yes, teachers should be allowed to participate, and student groups should be allowed to promote it on the same basis that any other event would be promoted in the schools, etc), I think this kind of exaggeration only feeds into the misconceptions being identified as one of the causes of these unjustified restrictions. I work with educators all the time and have for a long time. The vast, vast majority of teachers and school administrators are Christians themselves (like the general population) and certainly have no hostility to religious _expression_. Of the three factors you mention, #3 is almost certainly the least common. But #1 is what is being fed by these exaggerations. It's a shame that there are so many ill-educated educators out there who don't understand the law, but it certainly doesn't help the situation to turn every instance of a misguided principal needing a letter to fix his decision as an example of anti-Christian bias only feeds into the false perception that there is some vast anti-Christian conspiracy in schools to destroy all religious _expression_ that has been supported by the courts. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Lawsuits against SYATP.
ink the ADF blog post I quoted to begin this exchange is a milder and less specific version of the same kind of exaggeration and distortion that I'm objecting to). Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Lawsuits against SYATP.
Gary McCaleb wrote: The first sentence refers to this passage: We agree with the Seventh Circuit that the desirable approach is not for schools to throw up their hands because of the possible misconceptions about endorsement of religion, but that instead it is [f]ar better to teach [students] about the first amendment, about the difference between private and public action, about why we tolerate divergent views The school's proper response is to educate the audience rather than squelch the speaker. Schools may explain that they do not endorse speech by permitting it. If pupils do not comprehend so simple a lesson, then one wonders whether the [ ] schools can teach anything at all. Free speech, free exercise, and the ban on establishment are quite compatible when the government remains neutral and educates the public about the reasons. Hills v. Scottsdale Unif. Sch. Dist. No. 48, 329 F.3d 1044,1055 (quoting Hedges v. Wauconda Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295, 1299-1300 (7th Cir. 1993)).Note that the Hedges decision has been on the books for thirteen years and we still have a full time job dealing with the suppression of religious _expression_ on public school campuses. Ah, I misunderstood you completely. And I agree with the text you quote completely and want the schools to do a much better job of teaching about not only the first amendment, but the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general. As I said, I'm generally on your side when it comes to student religious liberty cases. As to the ACLU, I would incorporate by reference the book ACLU v. America by ADF's Alan Sears and Craig Osten. The ACLU does just enough mainstream religious liberties work to give itself cover for PR purposes, in my view. The book documents the ACLU's activities in extreme detail, with sources cited. The ACLU's record speaks for itself; it does not need to be "demonized" by us. Off the top of my head, ACLU has demonstrated its commitment to religious freedom by filing suit in Arizona (again) against tax credits that may incidentally benefit private religious schools; I fully agree that they are wrong on that case and I've written against their position on it already. But it's not a religious liberty case. No one's religious liberty is in jeopardy there, the case has to do with whether tax money can even indirectly go to religious schools even if the government doesn't decide who it goes to. I agree, they're wrong; but to cite that as evidence of them being opposed to religious freedom is fallacious. filing an amicus brief opposing our Equal Access Act case for a Bible club in Washington (amazingly, arguing that a case they use to get access to schools for pro-homosexual student clubs should be overruled in respect to theBible club); I assume you're referring to Truth Bible Club v Kentridge. If so, I think this is, at the very least, an oversimplification of the issue. I am a firm defender of the Equal Access Act as it is applied to both religious clubs and gay/straight alliances. But my understanding is that the issue in that case was whether the club could discriminate and still be recognized. That's an issue that is being adjudicated all over the country right now, particularly with respect to Christian Legal Society chapters on college campuses. And I happen to agree with you on this one as well. I think the 7th circuit ruling in the Southern Illinois case was correct and the 9th circuit ruling in the Hastings case was incorrect. But it's still a different issue than a typical equal access case and it's a closer call. Someone can still take the contrary position without being accused of being against free exercise. The argument there is over whether government has to (or even can) provide funding to groups that discriminate. Again, I'm on your side on this one, but I don't think it can be used as evidence of being opposed to religious freedom. These issues are just more complex than you're portraying them. and suing to force Cranston, RI, to remove a privately-placedcreche from the city hall lawn. None of these matters foster the proper accommodation of religion in our civil society. Well we can certainly argue all day long about the proper accomodation of religion in society. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to accuse anyone of not agreeing with you on every detail of being opposed to religious freedom (any more than it is reasonable for some folks on the strict separation side to portray anyone who favors greater accomodation for religion of being in favor of theocracy - and yes, I've criticized them for the same sorts of rhetorical exaggerations for which I'm criticizing your group now). My point in all of this is that it does us no good in examining these issues to oversimplify and demonize the other side. It adds plenty of emotion and very little reason to the discusssion.
Lawsuits against See You At The Pole
I came across this statement on the ADF's blog about See You At The Pole events, which are coming up in a couple days: Considering the decline in the moral values of America’s youth, teen pregnancy, and school violence, SYATP is seen by many as a refreshing and much needed injection of religion and faith in an increasingly dark sector of our society. To others, however, this annual event violates the separation of church and state and should be prohibited, thereby setting up a constitutional showdown in our public schools. But I'm not aware of any lawsuit ever being filed that claims that this event is unconstitutional. The Rutherford Institute refers to a few incidents where schools have refused to allow the event to be promoted over the PA system and such, but no suits actually challenging the constitutionality of the event. Does anyone know what they're referring to? If there have been such lawsuits filed, or even such opposition stated, I'd like to see documentation of it. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Lawsuits against SYATP.
Gary McCaleb wrote: We regularly receive complaints from high school students regarding official action against their effort to participate in SYATP events. In 2003, we filed Friesner, et al. v. Ogg, et al. (No. 0:03-cv-00893-JRT-RLE D. Minn.) after school officials banned the word "prayer" from SYATP posters. Fortunately, the school saw the light and the case rapidly settled. ADF and its allies regularly intercede in similar situations with demand letters; the reason that more suits are not filed is that the schools generally correct their wrong behavior once notified by demand letter. I'm aware of several cases involving things like whether the event could be promoted over the PA, whether teachers could participate, and so forth. But has there been any case where anyone has filed suit to stop the actual event? Or even a statement from groups like the ACLU or Americans United that the event itself was unconstitutional? The claim in the ADF's blog post was that "to others" the event itself "violates the separation of church and state and should be prohibited, thereby setting up a constitutional showdown in our public schools." I'm trying to figure out who those others are and where this constitutional showdown has ever taken place. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Lawsuits against SYATP.
Gary McCaleb wrote: I'd say that "others" certainly includes the school officials that attempt to suppress SYATP events. Surely, having to file suit as we did in Freisner qualifies asa "constitutional showdown." But so far I've not seen any evidence that any school officials have attempted to suppress the event. All of the situations mentioned have been of ancillary issues, not the "actual event" (to use the phrase the blog post used). And if, as you say, most of those situations are cleared up by a letter explaining the law, is it really an attempt to suppress, or is it merely ignorance of the law? Seems the latter would be a far more reasonable description of what is going on. And I don't think it's reasonable to declare that "others" are spoiling for a "constitutional showdown" because they think the event is unconstitutional without actually naming someone who A) thinks the event is unconstitutional or B) has actually attempted to stop it. I happen to agree with you on those ancillary cases as well. That is, if a school allows student groups to make announcements on upcoming events, they must also allow an announcement for this event. And I certainly would agree that teachers have just as much right to participate in the event as students do. But those are not attempts to suppress the event itself, they are merely misguided school officials who don't understand the law, and none of the examples given has anything to do with believing that the SYATP event itself is unconstitutional. This just looks a lot like rhetorical hyperbole to me, an attempt to paint far greater opposition than actually exists. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Recommendation...
Marc Stern wrote: Jacob had four wives. And see Exodus 21:10; Deut 21:15 all of which assume polygamy. In the context of an old testament that provides regulations for virtually everything, down to what kind of fabrics to wear and what to eat, it's hardly unreasonable to conclude that the lack of condemnation of polygamy is evidence of God's approval. This is especially true when he offered revelation both through and about men who engaged in polygamy, and he allegedly gave them many blessings. What's the alternative explanation, that it slipped his mind? That he saw fit to tell us how to conduct ourselves in the most banal and irrelevant items like how long to keep our hair, but couldn't be bothered to say only marry one person? Or for that matter, don't own other human beings? It just doesn't add up. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Recommendation...
Stephen R. Prescott, Esq. wrote: Basically a lurker on this list, wisdom would no doubt be for me to remain silent. Yet, fools rush in where angels fail to trod. I have no idea who Mr. Lofton is or the nature of the group with which he is associated. However, acknowledging the stellar credentials of his critics, its seems to me that the arguments of Professor Finkleman and supporters are the ones that are circular. The basic premise that people in the Bible did something, or at least that partiarchs did it means that God sanctions and condons the behavior is begging the question. Certainly, people in the Bible committed murder, adultery, and became intoxicated (Noah immediately after the flood episode ends). As I think Mr. Lofton is stating, the mere fact that a super hero like Noah, of whom God does not express any disapprove, does not merit an absolute statement that The Bible permits intoxication. And that is the sum total of Professor Finkleman, et al's argument: Some Biblical characters did it, therefore God approves of it. You're missing an important distinction here: the Bible DOES condemn murder, adultery and intoxication. It does not condemn polygamy, anywhere. Thus, it's a far more reasonable conclusion to draw that condemnation of polygamy was not a part of that moral code that is allegedly from God. Given that the OT contains an astonishing array of things that it condemns, even in the most minute and irrelevant of things (length of hair, type of fabric one may wear, etc), it is surely reasonable to conclude from the fact that polygamy is not condemned, and that God blesses polygamists greatly and makes them leaders throughout the Bible, that polygamy is not frowned upon from the perspective of the Bible. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Recommendation...
Stephen R. Prescott, Esq. wrote: A valid point, the Bible does condemn certain items, so we do not have to infer the Biblical view from circumstanial evidence. However, that cuts both ways. The Bible condemns drunkness. Yet, Noah is in no way criticized in the Biblical text for his intoxication. Rather, a son Ham is condemned severely for not covering up the results of his father's sin. God (or at least according to the author, God Himself not only does not condemn Noah's intoxication, but punishs one who took advantage of Noah's sin. In this case we can be absolutely certain that the silence of God does not demonstrate approval since intoxication is expressly condemned in the Biblical text.. Therefore, the seeming silence of God in response to polygamy does not prove divine approbation, only that God and/or the Biblical writers chose not to deal with that topic, just as likely an inference, it was not relevant to the spiritual point the author was making. I don't think it's true to say we can be absolutely certain that God does anything. I would call this evidence of incoherence within the Bible, owing to multiple writers and their own views, not as evidence of what God actually said or did. Moreover, at least for rulers the Bible does explicitly forbid polygramy in the passage I referenced, Deuteronomy 17:17. For complete context, vv. 17 -20. By the way I am hardly a Bible scholar, but that passage is in many catechisms and I am old enough to have been taught Bible stories in Sunday School (and public elementary school). Although I had to get on line to remember the reference it is a verse that immediately came to mind. [www.olivetree.com lets one do a textual search of a dozen plus versions, remember 3 or 4 words and it takes 30 seconds to find the passage.] Read in context, this chapter is saying that you will have a king, but it admonishes the future king not to enrich himself as his people's expense. Thus, it says, he shall not multiply horses, or silver, or wives. This indicates that wives were, like silver and horses, considered among the trappings of wealth and power. This is not a commandment against polygamy at all, it is a commandment against kings taking riches for themselves rather than looking after their people. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
New California Law
As many of you well know, California just added sexual orientation to its state anti-discrimination laws, particularly with regard to organizations that receive taxpayer funds. Many are upset that the law does not contain an explicit exemption for religious groups, but doesn't California have a very strong version of the RFRA that might be used to give such an exemption? Or am I mistaken? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: New California Law
Alan Brownstein wrote: You are mistaken about a state RFRA. Several years ago, the California legislature passed a state RFRA bill but it was vetoed by the Governor. The California Supreme Court has continually ducked the question of whether the free exercise clause in the state constitution provides any greater protection to religious liberty than that provided, after Smith, at the federal level. Okay, thank you. Have the state courts said anything in this regard? I know that the Federal courts will not apply the RFRA to the states. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: New California Law
Paul Finkelman wrote: Paul, I'm afraid your reply was empty. Can you resend? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ask the following question for edification-- How does one square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the Wiccan woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council meetings? I'm blanking on the name of the latter case, but it would seem that equality is at issue in both cases, and the results would seem at first blush in conflict with each other. And what position did CLS take on the Wiccan case, if any? Excellent question. One might add another: what position did the ACLU and/or Americans United take in this most recent case? There might well be hypocrisy on both sides of this one. The earlier case you're referring to was Simpson v Chesterfield Co. Board of Supervisors. That ruling can be found at http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041045.P.pdf. It appears at first blush that the court did not even consider the question of this being a public forum of any kind, and looked primarily at Marsh v Chambers as the controlling precedent. From that ruling: The parties here differ as to which lines of precedent govern this case. Simpson rejects the Countys argument that the principles of Marsh v. Chambers suffice to resolve the dispute. She instead offers, and the district court accepted, Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (finding "denominational preference" to violate the Establishment Clause), as well as Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971) (creating a general framework to evaluate Establishment Clause challenges). We think her reliance on these cases is misplaced and conclude that Marsh v. Chambers controls the outcome of this case. The court went on to note that Marsh was more on point and that it post dated both Larson and Lemon, and the court did not apply either of those cases in March. So it appears that the plaintiffs did not raise the public forum issue and the court did not consider it. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
Greg Baylor wrote: This dispute has been to the Fourth Circuit twice. In the first appeal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of the National Capitol Area, the ACLU Foundation of Maryland, the Anti-Defamation League, People for the American Way, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators,and Montgomery Soccer filed amicus briefs supporting Montgomery County Public Schools. In the second appeal, the National School Boards Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus brief supporting the school district. Interesting. Does anyone know why the change? Did the ACLU, PAW and AU feel that the new policy from the school board resolved the constitutional questions? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Fox News Forgets Fact in Christian Graduation Speech Story
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I much appreciate the kind words (particularly coming from the author of the conlaw book I still use and have been using since law school). There was actually anotherinteresting fact about the Erica Corder case in Monument, CO that wasn't in the Fox News story.Erica Corder'sfather is on the board of directors of James Dobson's Focus on the Family which is based near there (the father's connection to FoFis reported in the Colorado Springs Gazette). If anyone's interested, I took my argument to the Colorado Springs Gazette online forum in more extended written form at: http://forums.gazette.com/gazette/viewtopic.php?t=345start=30 What I'm having difficulty figuring out, however, is exactly where to draw the line in graduation speech preapproval cases. Does anyone have any good citations (or opinions) on when preapproval of a message becomes endorsement? Also, how do high schools fashion preapproval policies so they are not arbitrary or discriminatory? I would argue that if the graduation speaker is chosen according to some objective criteria, as when the valedictorian automatically is invited to speak, then the school should not exercise any control over the content of their speech at all. Then the speech is purely their own, there is no message of endorsement, and the student can say whatever they want. Free speech preserved, establishment clause problem eliminated, everyone hapy. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: The Roberts Court
Volokh, Eugene wrote: I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the endorsement test. I would agree with that. I would also add the various equal access/generally applicable benefits/religious discrimination cases going on in the Federal courts. You've got the Boy Scouts case in the 7th circuit (can the Federal government give a special benefit to a private group that discriminates on the basis of religion?), the Sea Scouts case from the California Supreme Court (can a local government withhold a generally applicable benefit from a private non-profit because they discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation?), and the two CLS cases on university recognition, one in the 7th circuit, one in the 9th, with conflicting results (must universities recognize student groups that discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation?). This is an area of church/state law where there is a great deal of confusion. Hopefully the Court will clear it up. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: The Roberts Court
Volokh, Eugene wrote: I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly Christian symbol. The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases seemed to be between the Christian symbols and Judeo-Christian-Muslim(?) symbols, with the former generally not allowed and the latter allowed. The Mt. Soledad cross could still be upheld on some specific grounds, for instance that it's in context likely to be seen as a war memorial and not just a cross (I'm skeptical of that on the facts, but that's one possible argument) -- but these grounds may be too fact-specific to warrant full Court review. So I'd think that the conservatives on the Court might prefer a more Ten-Commandments-like case. I would be more than happy to take bets on whether Scalia would redraw that line if the Mt. Soledad case reaches the court. I predict that such line-drawing will be non-existent in his judgement on that case. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Seventh Circuit Decision in Christian Legal Society v. Southern Illinois University
Greg Baylor wrote: A majority of the Seventh Circuit panel directed the district court to enter a preliminary injunction requiring the law school to reinstate the chapter during the pendency of the litigation. I'm going to repeat here what I said in an email I just sent to an attorney working on the UC/ACSI lawsuit. What I'm really curious about is how to distinguish between the line of cases that say you can't withhold recognition, benefits or access from religious groups if you allow them to non-religious groups (Rosenberger, Lamb's Chapel, Good News Club), and the line of cases that say that the government can withhold benefits from groups that engage in discrimination (Bob Jones, etc). In discussing the North Carolina case, Prof. Volokh, if I recall correctly, said that if the university had refused to recognize the group because it discriminates rather than because it's religious in nature, that would have been perfectly legal. And he seemed to think the courts were right in both cases. But it seems to me that there's a very thin line between the two, if one exists at all. We can't expect a Christian student group to allow non-Christians to lead the group any more than we could expect a Democratic group to allow Republicans to lead the group or have voting rights, or an environmentalist group to allow anti-environmentalists, and so forth. Yet none of those examples would cause anyone to blink an eye. It seems to me that private groups, even those who get public benefits, should be allowed to choose their leaders. I can see a distinction between those cases and the Boy Scout case in the 7th circuit because the Pentagon's support for the jamboree is a special benefit given only to them. But in a case where there is a general benefit to private groups for recognition, benefits or access, religious groups should be treated the same as non-religious groups, which means they should be able to control their membership. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
HR 2679
I'm surprised there has been little discussion here of HR 2679. Marc Stern, who I know is on this list, testified at the House Judiciary Committee hearings on the subject. This bill would amend 42 U.S.C. 1988 to exempt establishment clause cases from the provision which allows the winning plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit to receive legal fee reimbursement. Because such awards are only given if the plaintiff wins, I would argue that this is a case of the losing side attempting to rig the game to change the outcome. The religious right (for lack of a better phrase) is against the bulk of establishment clause jurisprudence over the last few decades. They've had little success in court trying to turn back those precedents, so they are attempting to make it much more difficult for plaintiffs to find representation to bring such suits. I call this the Tonya Harding strategy - she knew she couldn't beat Nancy Kerrigan in competition, so she had her hobbled on the way to the arena instead. More seriously, I think Marc's testimony was spot on. This law would create a clear disparity in cases. The legislation unfairly tips the balances against one side in court proceedings without regard to the merit of their claims. As an example, let's say a teacher decides to lead her class in prayer (despite the multiple court rulings that forbid this in the public schools). If the school allows her to do so and the family of one of the students in her class files suit on establishment clause grounds, they must bear the full cost of the litigation. Even if they win the case, if it costs a million dollars to fight such a case all the way to the Supreme Court - and it likely would - they have to be prepared to pay that million dollars even though the government has clearly acted in an unconstitutional manner here. But let's reverse the example. Let's say that the school refuses to allow the teacher to lead her class in prayer and the teacher decides to sue, claiming that this ruling violates her right to free speech and free exercise of religion. Because the suit is on grounds other than the establishment clause, this legislation would not apply and the teacher could recover the legal costs if she wins the suit, while those objecting to the policy on the other side, because their suit would be on establishment clause grounds, would not. Any thoughts? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Teenagers The Spirit of Liberty
Rick Duncan wrote: "This conflict isn't about "free speech" or even a 60-second prayer; it's about who gets to define what kind of nation we are." Charles Haynes First Amendment Center I agree with this insight. I don't think this issue is about the majority of students bullying a classmate as some have suggested. Do you really think that booing the Muslim student who objected to the prayer is *not* bullying? If so, perhaps you have a very different definition of booing than I do. I think it is about students taking a stand against a particular view of America, a view that wishes to impose a strictly secular establishment in the schools. I guess they (the students who took a stand and their parents who applauded)would say that it is better for the people to define the role of religion in the schools than for the ACLU and federal courts to do so. That's an absolutely absurd position. By that position, if "the people" decided to mandate that all students pray 5 times a day toward Mecca, the ACLU and federal courts could have no say in it. It's one thing to argue that this particular type of prayer does not violate the establishment clause (I think most of us agree that it's a close call, given the precedents); it's quite another to think that "the people" should get to decide whatever role religion will play in public schools. That is a pure recipe for majoritarian tyranny. I personally am not one who wishes to use public schools to impose religion on dissenters. But I am also strongly imposed to the public schools becoming an engine of secularization, a place where religious children need to wear a secular mask when taking part in school activities. And you honestly think that if students cannot force other students to sit through their religious exercises, then schools are "engines of secularization"? By that logic, then, could not a Muslim argue that allowing others to force them to sit through Christian prayers makes the schools an "engine of Christianization"? Again, school choice is the solution to this problem of "defining" what kind of nation we are and what kind of schools we attend. It does not have to be either religious schools and prayer or secular schools and no prayer. It can be both. The one for those who value religion as a necessary part of the education of children; and the other for those who don't. I agree with this, but we still must decide what goes on in public schools right now as they exist. And since A) public schools include a diverse student body of a multitude of religious viewpoints; B) religious exercises have no role to play in the educational mission of the school; and C) allowing any one religion to have access to force other religions to sit through their religious exercises during school activities can only result in alienation and conflict; it is clear to me that the best policy is simply to keep religion out of school activities altogether. But if we have a government school monopoly, and if someone tries to impose a strictly secular environment within that monopoly, then I will applaud students who stand up and say "we will not be silenced;we are going to participate in defining what kind of nation we are." These kids are heroes in my book. Their parents should be proud of them. But I doubt you would feel that way if the facts were turned around only slightly. Let's take a hypothetical. Let's say in the middle of the student's prayer, a group of Muslim students stood up and began to loudly recite an Islamic prayer in Arabic. Would you still applaud those students for standing up and saying "we will not be silenced, we are going to participate in defining what kind of nation we are"? I highly doubt it. I think you only applaud this because your views sit squarely with the majority, which in my mind means that it does amount to bullying - we have the numbers, so you're just going to have to sit there and take it while we carry out our religious exercises during a school event where religion is completely irrelevant to the process of education. If you were in the minority, I suspect your opinion would be dramatically different. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Bullying of Christian Students in Public Schools
Rick Duncan wrote: Did someone mention bullying of students in the government schools. Here is a case of real bullyingtaking place inthe Tolerant State (from a press release of the Pacific Justice Institute): I agree with you, these students have had their rights violated. I've written about this case and others that happened around the Day of Silence and supported those kids who wore shirts like this. But that has nothing to do with your argument in the prayer situation. Are you seriously going to say "well christians were bullied in california by the school, so it's okay for them to bully someone else in Kentucky"? The two situations have nothing to do with each other. Ed Brayton 05.23.2006 Students Plead With School Boards for Safe Schools and Free Speech Sacramento, CAStudents and their parents packed out a school board meeting at the Roseville Joint Unified School District in response to the suspensions received for peacefully expressing their religious beliefs. Numerous students of Slavic descent passed out Christian literature and wore t-shirts that read, Homosexuality is sin. Jesus can set you free. (For further details, see PJI press release May 2, 2006.) In addition to asking for their rights to speech and the free exercise of religion, these students and their parents asked the board to fulfill its obligations to protect students from threats, violence and other forms of harassment. Viktor Lavor, a junior, told the board that Slavic Christian students, while leafleting, were threatened by hostile peers that they would get beat up after school. Another pupil described how they went into the cafeteria wearing their shirts. While sitting in the cafeteria at breakfast, we had things like bottles, pieces of food and other objects thrown at us, said Lyana Tagintsev. I felt unprotected, she said. Taginstev told the board that the school is suppose to protect us like any other students, but I didnt see them try to do anything. Later that day, Lavor and Taginstev, along with 10 other students were summoned to the office by school officials. We were given two options: either to take off the shirts and go back to class or keep the shirts on and face two days suspension. After praying, our group chose to keep the shirts on and stand up for what we knew was the truth. If we would take off our shirts we would be cowards, Lavor said. Nadia Militan, who did not wear the shirt that day saw the other students in the school office who were suspended. Originally from the Ukraine, she told the board that this kind of speech suppression makes me wonder if American schools follow the US Constitution. Later I asked one of my friends if they had any more shirts. They did and I put it on in front of the office administration. They suspended me as well, Militan told an attentive board. In nearby San Juan Unified School District, parents and students intend to address that school board about similar hostility and suppression of speech targeting Slavic Christians. Students leafleted and wore the same t-shirts as their friends in Roseville. My review of the evidence so far indicates that the threats and actual violence against the students at San Juan is as bad if not worse than what is happening at Roseville, said Kevin Snider who is the PJI attorney representing the students from both districts. These students are pleading with the school boards to respect the rights of speech and to provide safe schools, stated Brad Dacus, PJI president. We are hopeful that the elected officials for these two districts will send a clear message on the rights of students to peacefully express themselves without fear of violence. The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600 Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax (916) 857-6902 Internet: www.pacificjustice.org Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence." --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst."-- Id. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. ___ 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)
Re: Teenagers The Spirit of Liberty
Rick Duncan wrote: Here is the way I look at it. One poor kid tried to censor his classmates with the help of a powerful legal ally, the ACLU. His classmates did not like being silenced by the poor kid. So they made a stand--not to ostracize the poor kid, but to stand up for their liberty of religious expression at their own commencement. They did not violate the spirit of the EC. The spirit of the EC deals with government coercion and religion. The true spirit of the Religion Clause is on the side of the students who would not be cowed and silenced by the ACLU and the unelected judiciary. I am proud of these kids. I hope their spirit spreads to many other schools and impacts many other commencements. There is no need to ask school officials to sponsor prayer. All students need to do is pray: without asking for endorsement or permission from government authorities. Just once, I'd really like to see a couple of Christian students at a graduation ceremony forced to sit through supplications to Allah and have a majority of Muslim students booing them as they get their diploma because they dared to object. I suspect a whole lot of the folks would switch sides in this debate very, very quickly. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Making a distinction
Volokh, Eugene wrote: It seems to me that, as a general matter, the government may deny benefits to groups that discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, etc.; I argue in my forthcoming Freedom of Expressive Association and Government Subsidies (Stan. L. Rev, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/association.pdf) that such restrictions are permissible content-neutral (or at least viewpoint-neutral) definitions of a designated public forum. If I understand the reasoning behind the original North Carolina preliminary injunction (since dissolved on mootness grounds, I think, because of a change in UNC policy) correctly, it seems to me that it was mistaken. So I'm not sure there's anything that needs to be reconciled there. In some cases that involve similar facts, the court reasoned that the nondiscrimination policy was applied selectively, based on the actual viewpoints that the group expressed (so that groups that express certain viewpoints weren't allowed to discriminate but others were). That, I think, is right, if the facts support it; and it's consistent with the California marina case, because while content-neutral (or at least viewpoint-neutral) applications of nondiscrimination policies are OK, applications that are based on the viepwoint expressed by the group (rather than just by the group's expressive association decisions) are not. So where does that leave cases like Lamb's Chapel and Rosenberger? Neither is precisely on point, but Rosenberger is pretty close to the North Carolina situation, although I don't think it was really argued on the basis of non-discrimination law. Would you say that Rosenberger was decided incorrectly? Or Lamb's Chapel? Please pardon my amateur's understanding of the cases; I'm asking this to try and elevate that level of understanding. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This story was sent to you by: michael newsom Some might find this interesting. Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies What a terrible article. It lumps a wide range of different policies together, from diversity training to hate speech codes to anti-discrimination codes, some of which are clearly unconstitutional and some of which are not. It pretends that only Christians want to get rid of some of them, which is blatantly false. I'm not a Christian, and I'm also a strong supporter of gay righs, and I'm a staunch opponent of hate speech codes, and I would argue that such codes at public universities are clearly unconstitutional. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution
Marty Lederman wrote:
Below is the text of the Resolution,
at least according to one newspaper. I don't know whether it's an
Establishment Clause violation. (It's a lot less religious in
substance than, say, the presidential Thanksgiving and Prayer Day
proclamations with which we're all familiar.) Apart from
constitutional doctrine, I don't think there's anything especially
wrong with a city condemning a church's policy if that policy is
perceived as harmful to the city's policies and morally objectionable
-- and I agree that this policy is.
While I agree about this particular policy that is being objected to,
would I (or we) feel the same way if it was reversed? If, instead, the
Board had put out a resolution against gay adoptions and condemned a UU
church's position in favor of them, would we still think there's
nothing wrong with it? I honestly don't know.
I am, however,troubled by the first
"Whereas" clause, with its xenophobic echoes of the anti-Catholicism of
the Kennedy era ("a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with . .
. "), and by the unfortunate use of the word "unacceptable" in the
second Whereas clause to describe the Church's statement about what
Catholic agenices should do: The Vatican statement might be disturbing
and objectionable -- even worthy of condemnation -- but it's not really
for a municipality to say whether a decree to Catholic agencies is or
is not "acceptable," is it? (And the fifth clause is a bit odd, if not
silly, because I assume Cardinal Levada does not make any pretense of
being a "representative" of San Francisco.)
Having said all that, I think the
most interesting and difficult provision in the resolution, certainly
from a constitutional perspective, is the first part of the final
clause, urging local Catholics to "defy" the Church's decrees. I'm
sure many people on this list will conclude that that is unacceptable,
but I'm not so sure -- Would it be unacceptable for Wisconsin to urge
the Amish to keep their kids in school for another year? For the
United States to urge Bob Jones University to stop discriminating? For
the Surgeon General to urge parents to cease the practice of religious
circumcision? (I'm interested here not only -- not primarily -- in the
constitutional question, but more in the question of propriety and good
government.)
Those are very interesting questions. I wonder if any of us would
answer them consistently in the real world.
Ed Brayton
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Newsom Michael wrote: I am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people are trying to get out from under an oppressive regime the likes of which conservative believers have not had to endure nor are likely to. While I agree with this, I don't think it really cuts against Doug's argument. And I say this as a very vocal proponent of gay rights. I absolutely agree that gay people have lived under an oppressive system for far too long and I strongly support gay marriage, gay adoptions and a myriad of other correctives. But I don't think that gay liberation requires forcing churches and religious organizations to change either their personal beliefs or their actions *within the confines of those organizations*. In fact, I think it is dangerous for gay rights proponents to push for policies that would place such a requirement because it undermines our own arguments in favor of self-determination and freedom of association. It's not just a bad idea as a practical matter, it's unprincipled as well. We certainly want to prevent such people from imposing their beliefs on the private behavior of gays (and the rest of us, in a wide range of other ways as well); but we undermine our principled position if we then seek to have government impose restrictions on their private behavior (as opposed to the laws they advocate). Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religious Groups and Gays and Lesbians
Marty Lederman wrote: This doesn't mean that gay- and lesbian-rights groups, and the DEA, and . . . . everyone else, shouldn't be more sensitive to claims for religious exemptions, or that they should treat religious objections as morally equivalent to, say, outright bigotry. I'm a strong proponent of RLUIPA, after all. But it would be odd, and contrary to their constituencies' interests, wouldn't it, if such groups actuallysupported granting certain employers/landlords/schools the right to exclude them from some of the benefits of civil society based solely on their sexual orientation? I don't think it would be odd at all. Indeed, I would argue that it's quite consistent. I am a staunch supporter of gay rights, but I also strongly support the right of religious groups to discriminate within their organizations. I would not support any bill that required a church or religious organization, for example, to hire a gay minister or even a gay janitor. Even less so would I support any law that would require any church or religious organization to stop speaking out in opposition to homosexuality, even if they do so in terms that I find quite offensive. I think this is entirely consistent with my support for gay rights because both are based upon the same basic premise - that the individual, acting alone or in private associations as they choose, has self-ownership and self-determination unless their actions deprive another person or private association of their equal right to self-determination or harm them against their will. Gays have the right to live their lives without interference from government, no matter how large a majority might wish to put them in jail for their behavior, until they step over the line drawn above; churches and religious groups and private associations have that same right. And frankly, I'm not sure it's true that most gay activists would disagree with me on this. I know lots and lots of staunch supporters of gay rights who agree with me and who understand that if they don't protect even their opponents' right to free speech and free association, they put their own at risk. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Rick Duncan wrote: Jeff Jacoby has an excellent column in today's Boston Globe here. And here is a money quote: I think that Glendon's quote at the end is a bit over the top and she doesn't make a distinction between discrimination and withdrawal of government funding. However, I tend to agree with Jacoby's argument and think that a religious exemption from this law is a reasonable middle ground. Having multiple groups with different rules all helping facilitate adoptions means that the CC's position is not actually going to diminish the state's goal of allowing gays to adopt, so it seems to me that such a compromise is the least restrictive means of achieving the state's purpose in passing the rule (with which I wholeheartedly agree). If CAtholic Charities was the only provider and their religious stance prevented gays from adopting and frustrated the intent of the law, the situation would be quite different. But it seems to me that the state of Massachusetts can achieve both goals here, opening opportunities for gays to adopt children and allowing Catholic Charities to continue to facilitate adoptions without violating their faith. Ed Brayton Note well: Catholic Charities made no effort to block same-sex couples from adopting. It asked no one to endorse its belief that homosexual adoption is wrong. It wanted only to go on finding loving parents for troubled children, without having to place any of those children in homes it deemed unsuitable. Gay or lesbian couples seeking to adopt would have remained free to do so through any other agency. In at least one Massachusetts diocese, in fact, the standing Catholic Charities policy had been to refer same-sex couples to other adoption agencies. The church's request for a conscience clause should have been unobjectionable, at least to anyone whose pri! ority is rescuing kids from foster care. Those who spurned that request out of hand must believe that adoption is designed primarily for the benefit of adults, not children. The end of Catholic Charities' involvement in adoption may suit the Human Rights Campaign. But it can only hurt the interests of the damaged and vulnerable children for whom Catholic Charities has long been a source of hope. Is this a sign of things to come? In the name of nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or go out of business? Same-sex adoption is becoming increasingly common, but it is still highly controversial. Millions of Americans would readily agree that gay and lesbian couples can make loving parents, yet insist nevertheless that kids are better off with loving parents of both sexes. That is neither a radical view nor an intolerant one, but if the kneecapping of Catholic Charities is any indication, it may soon be forbidden. ''As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, ''the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination . . . Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles." The ax fell on Catholic Charities just two years after those words were written. Where will it! have fallen two years hence? Mary Ann's point is well-taken. If A, then B. I wish I had thought of that! 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! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ___ 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 Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.3/281 - Release Date: 3/14/06 ___
Re: And Now For Something Completely Different
Rick Duncan wrote: Human Rights Campaign says:"Boston Catholic Charities puts ugly political agenda before child welfare." Link. Excerpt: Denying children a loving and stable home serves absolutely no higher purpose, said Solmonese. These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children.Every one of the nations leading childrens welfare groups agrees that a parents sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith. I agree with all of that except the last part. The Bishops are acting consistent with their faith, and to that extent I respect their decision. But that doesn't make the rest of the statement untrue. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: And Now For Something Completely Different
Mark Graber wrote: This is confusing. I (and I suspect Mr. Brayton) believe that the catholic Chruch espouses a great many doctrines that I believe to be immoral. I nevertheless believe that the catholic Church has the right to preach what I think are ugly doctrines and that Catholics have a right to act on them in their private capacity. We may dispute whether running an adoption service falls into the public or private sphere (and dispute whether public/private is the right dicotomy, but I take it that a great many of us who support broad application of laws forbidding discrimination against gays and lesbians nevertheless think that the Church may ban gays and lesbians from joining the priesthood, taking certain sacraments, however wrong we may think that is. To go further, I also think they have the right not to facilitate gay adoptions if they choose. I would even go further than that and say that there is a potential middle ground in this case that I would have no problem with. I'd be okay with the state granting a religious exemption to Catholic Charities in this situation, allowing them to continue to facilitate adoptions but not by gay couples while also encouraging other groups to facilitate gay adoptions. That's a reasonable compromise that allows the Church to carry out its charity function without violating the tenets of their faith. But I don't think that means that their decision is immune from criticism. I think their decision, while being admirably consistent with their beliefs, is a terrible one that puts moral purity above the best interests of real children. I find that morally indefensible. However, it is still well within their rights to make such a decision. I can't force them to do what I think is right, but I don't think that means I can't criticize them for it. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: And Now For Something Completely Different
Richard Dougherty wrote: I happen to agree with Ed Brayton that tolerance does not mean immunity from criticism, but I'm guessing many or most people would not. But what does one call lecturing the Church on its own teachings? Or the assertion that its theology, grounded in 2000 years of teaching, is simply an ugly political agenda? Or telling the Church what is a matter of faith and what is not? I call it criticism, of the same sort that would be aimed at any other set of ideas with which one disagrees. No idea is immune from criticism and it is simply absurd to pretend that criticism is equivalent to intolerance, particularly when the person making the criticism is also making an argument for exempting the behavior they are criticizing from the reach of a particular law. I am all for legally tolerating the Church's right to make this decision and, as I said, I would have no problem with allowing them to continue to so discriminate despite the state law in question. But I still think their decision is wrong and it isn't the least bit intolerant to state why I think that. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Massachusetts RFRA?
Does Massachusetts have a version of the RFRA, as many states do? If so, how would they go about getting an exemption in the case of the gay adoptions? Or could they invoke the Federal RFRA? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Massachusetts RFRA?
Douglas Laycock wrote: Massachusetts has no RFRA and is not subject to federal RFRA. But it has two decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court interpreting the state free exercise clause in ways closer to Sherbert-Yoder than to Smith-Lukumi Thanks Doug. I had found one such decision since I asked the question. Why is it not subject to the Federal RFRA? Does the Federal RFRA apply itself explicitly to Federal actions only? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: New Christian Web Site
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TheAmericanView.com 2 years old is new? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Boy Scouts, Title VII, and the ministerial exemption
Volokh, Eugene wrote: The Boy Scouts asserts the following: With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people. Say that the Boy Scouts are sued for refusing to hire an atheist or agnostic for a high leadership position. They raise a RFRA defense, as well as a post-Smith Free Exercise Clause defense. Yes, they say, our shared religious beliefs are quite limited -- we don't insist on agreement about the Trinity, about the divinity of Christ, or even about monotheism. (I'm not sure whether the Scouts read the God in their Declaration of Religious Principles as necessarily referring to only one God, but assume that they don't.) But we do have two shared religious beliefs: God(s) do(es) exists, and we must be reverent to Him/Them. We therefore have the right to hire as our leaders only those who share the group's stated religious beliefs, just as a church or a synagogue has the right to hire as its leaders only those who share its religious beliefs. What result? This doesn't, of course, test the access-to-subsidy aspects of my earlier hypotheticals. But it does test the question whether the Boy Scouts have any RFRA rights, or whether they are so latitudinarian that they can't be said to have a religious practice to be burdened. I think they would be reluctant to assert that they are a religious organization because they are involved in so many cases involving government benefits. If they take the position that they are an explicitly religious organization, they will have a much harder time making the case for subsidy. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Where academic freedom and the First Amendment religion clauses clash
Brad M Pardee wrote: There was an interesting column in today campus paper about the hostility in certain places on our campus (a state university) toward conservative Christians (and, in fact, conservatives in general, although it's the hostility based on the student's religion which is germane to this list). One of the significant points of the column, written by a member of the English Dept. faculty, says, "I have before me an e-mail from a conservative Catholic student who had 'consistently been ostracized throughout [last] semester' in a class in which the professor had 'harassed and belittled' her for her faith, ultimately going on a rant that reduced the student to tears." Assume for the sake of discussion that this description of the student's experience is accurate (and I have no reason to assume it is not). What would happen if the student were to file a complaint that the professor, as a representative of a state institution, was violating either the student's First Amendment right to free exercise or the Establishment Clause (assuming that a state can neither advocate nor denigrate a particular religion)? Does the professor have a defense in claiming academic freedom, or does the First Amendment trump that claim? While I don't think any of us would excuse any professor for berating a student over their religious views, I think it would be very dangerous to try and draw a line against a professor "denigrating a particular religion". Professors teach things that are contrary to what is believed by some religious people every hour of every day, as well they should. If someone believes, as a matter of faith, that the earth is 6000 years old they are going to run into a professor "denigrating" that belief - by teaching that it's false and the earth is really 4.55 billion years old - in any geology course. A devout Catholic might feel that a history professor is denigrating their religion by teaching about the crusades and placing blame on the Church. On the other hand, a Muslim might feel his religion is being denigrated if the professor places the blame the other way. There simply is no way to avoid having some beliefs contradicted in a university, nor should there be. So how would you propose that such a line be drawn without essentially destroying the entire purpose for which a university exists? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Larry Darby wrote: My post was very much material and relevant to law and religion. I believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of Judaism or world Jewry or global endeavors of its adherents. No matter how often or who opposes freedom of religion, which includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry Would it be rude of me to suggest that someone stick a dreidel in this guy's mouth to shut him up? Probably. I guess I better not suggest it then. Crankily, Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote: Messrs. Brayton's and Darrell's responses are much appreciated. For the religiously oriented,the lack of science-based information is no proof of the existence of "God" (or of "the Force" in sciencefiction). It does importantly leave intellectual space for those who choose to believe in a god (and if so to ponder wherethat godcame from), as well as intellectual space for those who choose to believe there is no god. And I think this is a very reasonable statement. I'm sure there will be some on the extremes on both sides who will argue that this is ceding too much to the other side, but I think it strikes a healthy and constitutionally appropriate balance. And shouldn't curiosityabout the origin and meaning of "time"also be encouraged in public school teaching? As for labeling "intelligent design" a"theory", I'm not sure. Francis Beckwith prefers "an intellectual movement" comprised of "particular strands of thought" (his 2003 book, p. 91). For Forrest Gross, it is a "bold strategy" as well as "a movement with a plan" (their 2004 book, p.16), among other things. One thing for sure, it is offered as contrary to "evolution theory". I think both Beckwith and Forrest and Gross have it right. It's certainly a movement that comprises a handful of basic arguments (irreducible complexity, specified information, etc), and it's certainly true that it is often (but not always) offered as being contrary to the theory of evolution, but that does not make it a theory in and of itself. Personally, I think a more accurate term is "model". That is, evolutionary theory is a model of the natural history of life on earth that is made up of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different theories and hypotheses about different aspects of how it occured. It can be stated as a general theory - "the theory that all life on earth is derived from a common ancestor via descent with modification" - but there are innumerable theories and hypotheses within that model. ID is not property called a theory for several reasons. First, it makes no novel predictions about the nature of the evidence, meaning that there is no model of the natural history of life on earth. For some ID advocates, the earth is only 6000 years old and all present life forms were created in a single week and lived on earth simultaneously; for other ID advocates, the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life developed on earth gradually over the course of 3.9 billion years as the evidence indicates. Second, there is no positive statement of ID that can be made, partially because of the first problem and partially because all of the arguments for ID presume and are reliant upon the failure of evolution to explain a given phenomenon (irreducible complexity relies upon the inability of complex biochemical systems to evolve, Dembski's explanatory filter relies upon the inability of the interaction of chance and law to do the same thing, all of Wells' arguments are purely negative in evaluating arguments for evolution, etc.). Third, because there is no way to either test or falsify ID. So it's fair to call it a movement, but not a theory in the scientific sense of the term. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Rick Duncan wrote: Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the Pink Triangles shoved down their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Given how common anti-gay harrassment and bullying is in our schools - and believe me, I've been there and seen it first hand - I hardly think it's reasonable to say that those who make an effort to prevent that from occuring are whiny complainers. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and imagine being a gay teenager on a football team. Teenage boys, in particular, can be incredibly cruel. If you are even suspected of being gay, if you show the slightest affectation that someone interprets as a sign of being gay, you can find yourself living a nightmare of constant bullying. I know this for a fact, I've watched it happen to people I care about and I've been one of those people who has had to stand up for them and say, Enough. When I see gay-straight alliances forming in public schools and kids rallying around other kids who have been victimized by this sort of thing and taking a stand against this kind of bigotry, I'm proud of them. The schools should absolutely be supporting those efforts. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Brad M Pardee wrote: We have the pink triangles here at the University of Nebraska, too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I personally believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male, female, or any other reason at all, then there's a campus safety issue. In practice, though, what they call "safety" really means "I won't hear anyone suggest that sex belongs only within a heterosexual marriage." Superintendent Lim's claim that it's not about a belief system is simply disingenuous. I think you're presuming here what you can't possibly know. You don't know what the motivations are of the people who want those signs to go up. How do you know that they're not genuinely concerned about the amount of bullying that goes on of anyone presumed to be gay? I've been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote: Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested. Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition for public school purposes of "science", or what's involved in teaching "about religion". On the latter issue, it simply relies on Brennan's concurring opinion in Schempp. A. In courses presenting science-based information pertaining to the development processes of life forms, including evolution theory, or the development processes of physical matter, including big bang theory, public school teachersshall make clear that there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either; provided that related religion-based information, including intelligent design theory, shall not be presented in such courses. I don't think this is really an accurate statement. As regards abiogenesis, the origin of life on Earth, there is a difference between saying "there is no consensus as to how life originated" (which is a perfectly valid statement) and saying "there is no scientific information available" about it. We do have scientific information on which to build testable hypotheses about the origin of life. For instance, we can use air trapped in rock matrices and amber deposits to determine the ratio of different gasses in the early earth environment, giving us information about the environment in which life originated. We can test the ability of clay to catalyze the formation of amino acids and polymers and so forth. All of that is information that is useful in developing theories about the origin of life even if it's true that we don't currently have an accepted explanation for how it did occur. I think cosmologists would also argue that the statement about the origin of matter is also inaccurate, though this is not really my area of specialty. They would likely argue that the big bang itself was the origin of matter in all of its various forms, particularly the origin of the elements. It's certainly true to say that we don't have any information about what, if anything, originated or caused teh big bang. It's even likely true to say that in that instance we really don't have any information to go on, at least nothing past the point of Planck time. I would think it would be more useful to make a statement something like this: "The theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life on earth, but it doesn't directly address the origin of the first life forms. Scientists continue to research the question of the origin of life, but as of now there is no accepted explanation on that question." That should perhaps be accompanied by a broader statement saying something like: "Science is only equipped to answer questions of an empirical nature, questions about 'how' things happen. It can't answer 'why' questions, nor does it attempt to. Science is incapable of addressing the existence of God. Individual scientists do of course have a wide range of opinion on the subject, but science itself cannot address it either positively or negatively. Nothing taught in science should be viewed as a position for or against the existence of God or the truth of anyone's religious views." B. In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the creation, origin or development processes of life forms or of physical matter, including intelligent design theory; provided that such teaching neither treats religion or religious views as truth or as ignorance, nor promotes nor discriminates against religion generally, any particular set of religious beliefs, or any negative views about religion. This seems fairly reasonable to me, all in all, though I don't think I'd use the phrase "intelligent design theory". There is no such theory at this point, so there's really nothing to teach. One could discuss various arguments for intelligent design, I suppose, but that phrase is a bit of an oxymoron. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class
Brad M Pardee wrote: So much for the oft-repeated myth that opponents of intelligent design simply want to keep ID out of the science classrooms. When I read this article, it seemed pretty clear that groups like Americans United aren't going to be content with that. They seem to want to make sure that any student in a public school makes it safely to graduation without ever having heard about ID in any forum of any kind at school (unless, of course, it's a forum where they can say, "See, anybody with any scientific understanding knows that ID isn't true.") If I had kids, this is the sort of poppycock that would have cynics like me following Rick Duncan's example and homeschooling them. I think you're misrepresenting the position of those who oppose teaching creationism. No one on our side, so far as I know, has ever said that it's okay to advocate creationism as long as it's not done in a science class. We have said, and I do believe, that it is possible to teach *about* creationism in an objective way in, for example, a comparative religion class, so long as it is done without endorsing or advocating it, just as I think it's possible to teach a course on the Bible as history or literature without endorsing or advocating for it. But the class in El Tejon was clearly not a course that did that. Even the Discovery Institute, after first making the claim that you did above, changed their tune quickly when they saw the actual course content and realized that this course, in their words, "advocates young earth and Biblical creationism." Since the courts have consistently ruled that creationism is an inherently religious idea and schools may not advocate it without running afoul of the establishment clause, surely it's not reasonable to allow a loophole that says you may do so as long as you change the label on the course from "science" to "philosophy". That's all they did in this case was change the label, the content was almost entirely about creationist claims about science - the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the fossil record, radiometric dating and so forth. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not certain of all the facts or whether the teacher's purpose was to present the case for ID only, but from what I know I think Brad is right. What's wrong with teaching the case for and against ID in a philosophy class? Is it any different from teaching the case for and against communism in a history or social studies class. As an atheist and opponent of ID on all sorts of conceptual, philosophical, and moral grounds, unless there are undisclosed relevant facts, I think there's no obvious reason why the course should not be taught. Moreover, with a little more knowledge of the course, I can see myself suggesting to my daughter to elect to take the course. Of course, my recommendation would surely prompt my daughter not to even consider taking it. But that's not why I'd make the recommendation in the first place.It's good for everyone to understand ID as a hypothesis and as a movement. As I said in my previous post, this just doesn't square with the facts of this particular class. Even the Discovery Institute says that this course was not an objective one that taught the case for and against ID. It was a young earth creationist course that taught that perspective almost exclusively. In the second syllabus, they rushed to find a single pro-evolution video to add to the 19 creationist videos they were planning to show in the class. This class was simply advocating creationism, plain and simple. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Return to Dover
Andrew Koppelman wrote: A note to the list: I've just been looking over the discussion of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, and was disappointed by how little discussion there was of the court's actual legal analysis. There was some early focus on some inflammatory language in the last pages of the decision, and then the conversation spun off into a general discussion of appropriate pedagogy in this area, which I fear does not play to the strengths of this list. It would be good to have a conversation that focuses on the merits of this decision, which is likely to be cited frequently in the future. So I am here to invite that conversation. I'll throw out an hypothesis and invite people to try to hit me. The penultimate paragraph of the decision, which denounces the breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision, is unfortunate, and the judge would have been well advised to take that whole paragraph out. His exasperation is understandable, but the paragraph is intemperate. Nonetheless, the opinion as a whole is sound in its application of the relevant constitutional rules, and were the decision to be appealed (as evidently it will not be), there is no reason to think that it would not have been upheld. I could justify these claims by summarizing the Court's reasoning, but I won't waste your time by doing that, since the reasoning is laid out in the opinion. If I'm wrong, I can be refuted by pointing to specific weaknesses in the court's reasoning. I think Judge Jones wrote a decision that was carefully crafted to avoid being overturned. The factual findings were clear and unambiguous and supported by voluminous testimony. And on the legal issues, he was careful to address the question from the perspectives of both the Lemon test and the Endorsement Test. If it had been overturned, it would only have been with an explicit repudiation of the Lemon test or the endorsement tests, or both. Of course, we'll never know for sure since it won't be appealed. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Slightly off topic posting
Slightly off topic, I know, but congratulations are in order to list member Doug Laycock. It was just announced that he and his wife have accepted positions at the University of Michigan, he at the law school and she as a provost. Actually, I think the congratulations really should go to U of M for managing to lure Doug away after so many years of trying. I'm a Michigan State guy myself, but I know a major coup when I see one and getting a scholar of his preeminence is a very big deal not only for the university but for the entire state. Welcome to my home state, Prof. Laycock. Hope you don't mind a little snow. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Dover Case Questions
Perry Dane wrote: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Dennett claim to be one of the propositions officially taught as a part of a science curriculum? I assume not. I believe it would be. An official government endorsement of atheism would be no less an establishment, in my view, than endorsement of Christianity or theism itself. I also believe that Dawkins and Dennett are wrong and that they should do a much better job of distinguishing between what science says and the theological or philosophical inferences that one draws from science. Scientific theories are often used to inform our non-scientific opinions, and that is well and good, but they can often do so in contradictory ways. For example, big bang cosmology. William Lane Craig argues that big bang cosmology supports Christian theism; Quentin Smith argues that big bang cosmology supports atheism. So is big bang cosmology theistic or atheistic? Neither, of course. Big bang cosmology is a discrete theory that explains a specific set of data and that is all it does. The arguments of Craig and Smith are philosophical arguments that draw opposing inferences from that explanation, neither of which is intrinsic to the theory itself. Schools should certainly teach the theory because it is incredibly well supported (i.e. it's true, within the boundaries of reasonable doubt), but they should not take a position on the theological or anti-theological inferences that others draw from those theories. Teach the science, leave the philosophy out. Would it be constitutional to tell students that there are no truths that are unamentable, in principle, to scientific study and verification? I assume not. (I'm not saying that these sorts of thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.) All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advise students that the methodological naturalism built into scientific inquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of intelligent design theory as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken for an official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and Dennett. I think it would not only be constitutional, I think it is necessary. We do a lousy job of teaching how science operates, by and large, and I think we absolutely ought to teach science beginning there. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
