Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

[Will Linden]

My impression is that most of the self-styled-mainline Protestants around me 
wouldn't know justification by faith if they fell over it, and can't explain 
"their" doctrines any farther than "We-don't-believe-in-the-Pope".

- Original Message -
From: Paul Finkelman 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:35:39 + (UTC)
Subject: Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

> Just out of curiosity, how many Christan faiths, sects, denominations, 
> require that a convert know all 12 of the apostles to be Baptized?  I would 
> hazard a guess that millions of American Christians cannot pass this test.  
> Furthermore, my understanding (as an outsider) is that "Christianity begins" 
> with the acceptance of Jesus as the "savior" and "the son of God" -- so does 
> the unnamed immigration judge here fail his/her own test?
>
> I give talks all the time on the Ten Commandments, and most of the people in 
> my audiences do now know all Ten or the order they are in;  virtually none 
> have a clue that Jews, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and 
> Anglicans/Episcopalians all have a different Ten Commandments.  Does that 
> mean they are not Christians (or Jews)?.
>   
> **
> Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
> Senior Fellow
>  Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
>  University of Pennsylvania
>  and
> Scholars Advisory Panel
> National Constitution Center 
>  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
>  518-439-7296 (w)
>  518-605-0296 (c) 
>  paul.finkel...@yahoo.com 
> www.paulfinkelman.com
>   From: James Oleske 
>  To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
>  Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:22 PM
>  Subject: Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the 
> U.S.
>
> Thanks, Chip. I can see why sincerity might be more difficult to judge in the 
> denial-of-affiliation situation than in the claim-of-affiliation situation, 
> but I'm not sure a sincerity inquiry is impossible in the former situation. 
> And I do wonder how often the line between a permissible sincerity inquiry 
> and an impermissible judicial development of a religious test gets blurred in 
> the latter situation. In one BIA decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, an 
> immigration judge included this explanation for why it had found that the 
> claimant had not converted to Christianity: 
> "The respondent cannot even name the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. With the 
> Court's understanding that Christianity begins with the life and teaching of 
> Jesus Christ in the New Testament, the 12 apostles have some of the most 
> important, if not the most important, writings of Christianity. The Court has 
> serious doubt in the respondent's conversion to Christianity when he cannot 
> even give the names of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ." 
> Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming the BIA's 
> decision after finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's 
> factual findings). But see id. at 1000 (Berzon, dissenting) ("[T]he question 
> is not what Toufighi believes but what Iran understands him to believe—or, 
> more accurately, not to believe. It is thoroughly plausible that because he 
> attends Christian services and belongs to a Christian church, Toufighi will 
> be taken to have renounced Islam. Neither the BIA's nor the IJ's 'opinion[s] 
> ... consider[ed] what could count as conversion in the eyes of an Iranian 
> religious judge, which is the only thing that would count as far as the 
> danger to [the petitioner] is concerned.' Even if his conversion is not 
> 'genuine,' he remains at risk.") (quoting Bastanipour v. I.N.S., 980 F.2d 
> 1129, 1132 (7th Cir.1992)).
> Putting aside the dispute between the majority and dissent in Toufighi over 
> the relevance of the IJ's factual finding, I think the finding itself could 
> be viewed not only as a questionable sincerity finding, but also an 
> impermissible assumption of judicial authority to determine the religious 
> importance of the 12 apostles. 
> - Jim
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Ira Lupu  wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jim, for the kind words about the book.
> On the asylum and refugee problem -- someone asked me about this yesterday, 
> off-list.  I answered with a variation on the following:In persecution 
> cases, someone is claiming to be of a certain faith (or at least that she 
> fears persecution because others perceive her to be of that faith).  
> Sincerity is an appropriate inquiry into either of those assertions.  But 
> the context of the Trump proposal involves someone denying that she is a 
> Muslim.  If the person seeking entry denies affiliation, what questions can 
> you ask?  The government may not assert that anyone who believes X is 
> therefore a member of Faith Y.  If immigration judges probe affiliation, 
> I'll bet they don't ask whether the applicant believes in the divinity of 
> Christ, or believe

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

[Will Linden]

Are those purported instances based on religious beliefs against serving people 
of other religions? (Or, Gordelpus, a specific religion, as you seem to be 
implying?) Or on the "perception" that They are all evial terrorists, which is 
not a tenet of any religion I can call to mind.

- Original Message -
From: Paul Finkelman 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:02:24 + (UTC)
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

> We have all sorts of stories where business will not serve Muslims in the 
> news.
>  
> **
> Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
> Senior Fellow
>  Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
>  University of Pennsylvania
>  and 
>  Scholar-in-Residence  
>  National Constitution Center 
>  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
>  518-439-7296 (w)
>  518-605-0296 (c) 
>  paul.finkel...@yahoo.com 
> www.paulfinkelman.com
>   From: Doug Laycock 
>  To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' 
>  Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:54 PM
>  Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
>
> #yiv7506987746 #yiv7506987746 -- _filtered #yiv7506987746 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
> 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 
> 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 
> 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv7506987746 #yiv7506987746 p.yiv7506987746MsoNormal, 
> #yiv7506987746 li.yiv7506987746MsoNormal, #yiv7506987746 
> div.yiv7506987746MsoNormal 
> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7506987746 a:link, 
> #yiv7506987746 span.yiv7506987746MsoHyperlink 
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7506987746 a:visited, 
> #yiv7506987746 span.yiv7506987746MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
> {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7506987746 
> span.yiv7506987746EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7506987746 
> .yiv7506987746MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 
> {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7506987746 div.yiv7506987746WordSection1 
> {}#yiv7506987746 Show me a case. It just hasn’t happened. We have a woman 
> dead in Kansas for lack of a state RFRA; that’s a real case. These wild 
> discrimination hypotheticals are so far just that – wild hypotheticals. And 
> probably that’s all they will be for the future too.  Discrimination 
> against gay customers is entirely legal in Indiana except in Indianapolis and 
> Bloomington. That doesn’t mean that it’s happening, much less that 
> businesses are discriminating and then offering religious justifications. The 
> various Indiana reporters who have called me had not heard any reports of 
> that kind of discrimination.  Douglas LaycockRobert E. Scott Distinguished 
> Professor of LawUniversity of Virginia Law School580 Massie 
> RoadCharlottesville, VA  22903     434-243-8546  
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:44 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought  But does this mean that 
> "religion is not protected?   Will we see claims that members of certain 
> faiths do not want to hire (or even serve) members of other faiths?  I think 
> the language of the Indiana law and some of these other laws might allow 
> this.     *
> Paul FinkelmanSenior FellowPenn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and 
> ConstitutionalismUniversity of PennsylvaniaandScholar-in-Residence National 
> Constitution CenterPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (p)518-605-0296 
> (c) 
> paul.finkel...@albanylaw.eduwww.paulfinkelman.com*From:
>  religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on 
> behalf of Marty Lederman [lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:34 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wroughtor, imagine if Justice Alito 
> had not included the references to "race" and "racial" in this sentence:   
> "The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity 
> to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on 
> racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal." 
>  On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Marty Lederman  
> wrote:
> Before the ruling -- but not before the lower court decisions and the slew of 
> briefs --including by many Catholic groups that were insistent upon reading 
> RFRA narrowly back in 1993 -- urging the Court to do at least as much as it 
> did (indeed, more so).   The converse point works, too:  If the Court had 
> issued a Lee-like 9-0 decision, there wouldn't now be much of an opposition 
> to state RFRAs (but not nearly the same impetus to enact them, either).  On 
> Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Ryan T. Anderson 
>  wr

RE: The racist prostitute hypothetical

[Will Linden]

  Maybe I am missing something but would not the choice of who to 
engage in sex with come under the "right of privacy" doctrine iniitiated 
by Griswold?

___
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: Hobby Lobby transcript

[Will Linden]

But kosher clothes would have to avoid SHATNES.

- Original Message -
From: "Levinson, Sanford V" 
To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" 
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:10:44 +
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby transcript

> I stand thoroughly corrected!  And, of course, there is no general 
category called "kosher clothes."  This is a good demonstration that it's 
always a good idea to go back and read the cases before opining, because 
I also would have sworn that the case arose in Massachusetts.  I'm glad 
I'm taking an exam in Chip's course :)
> 
> sandy
> 
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:00 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
> 
> Braunfeld did not sell meat.  From the opinion: "Appellants are merchants 
in Philadelphia who engage in the retail sale of clothing and home 
furnishings within the proscription of the statute in issue."
> 
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Levinson, Sanford V 
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
> With regard to Braunfield, given that the customers are a distinct subset 
of people who want Kosher meat, isn't the argument more that they are 
decidedly inconvenienced by being unable to shop on Sunday (which is just 
another day to them), but NOT that they will refrain from buying kosher 
meat from Braunfield.  After all, no other kosher meat market will be 
open on Saturday, and they're not going to buy non-kosher meat on Sunday. 
 Or is (was) the argument that non-Sabbath observant Jews would no longer 
buy general grocery products from Braunfield that were easily available 
from Stop and Shop on Saturday?  In the former case, then Braunfield's 
overall income should be roughly the same even with the forced Sunday 
closing.  Is this even a relevant way of approaching the case, instead of 
being upset, as I was almost fifty years ago when I read it, at the 
simple inegalitarian aspects of Jewish butchers being forced to close two 
days a week (one day by the state, one day by their !
>  religious duty) while (mainstream) Christians could remain open six days 
a week.  But, to repeat, this would be a competitive advantage only if 
Jewish shoppers really didn't care that much about where they brought 
their meat and other grocery products.  It would be a different case, 
presumably, if we were talking about, say, paint stores, where there's no 
category called "kosher paint."
> 
> sandy
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: 

religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 

[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
 
On Behalf Of Micah Schwartzman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:30 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
> 
> In the context of discussing Marty's substantial burden argument, Justice 
Kagan invoked Braunfeld. I made a similar comparison on the listserv back 
in December:
> 
> > Braunfeld might support Marty's argument. The government provides an 
option to all employers: (1) pay a tax, or (2) provide coverage. If (1) 
doesn't burden religion, and even if it's somewhat more expensive, 
Braunfeld seems to contemplate that laws will sometimes work in this way. 
Provided a law doesn't directly compel anyone to violate their religious 
beliefs, its imposition of additional costs on religious practice is not 
sufficient to show a substantial burden.
> >
> > Marty didn't cite Braunfeld in his post, so maybe he wouldn't rely on 
it. And maybe there are other problems with the analogy, but I wonder if 
the "no employer mandate" argument turns on an empirical claim, at least 
if the cost differentials are not so significant as to be tantamount to 
coercion -- as in the 4980D tax for failing to comply with coverage 
requirements.
> 
> Here's Justice Kagan (transcript p. 24):
> 
> > 15  JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, let's say that that's
> > 16  right. Let's say that they have to increase the wages a
> > 17  little bit. I mean, still we are talking about pretty
> > 18  equivalent numbers. Maybe it's a little bit less; maybe
> > 19  it's a little bit more. But this is not the kind of
> > 20  thing that's going to drive a person out of business.
> > 21  It's not prohibitive.
> > 22  It's like the thing that we talked about in
> > 23  Braunfeld where we said, you know, maybe if the store
> > 24  can't stay open 7 days a week, it makes a little bit
> > 25  less money. But so be it, is what we said.
> 
> If it works, I do think this argument raises factual questions that would 
have to be addressed on remand.
> 
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Marty Lederman 
mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> > is here:
> >
> > http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354
> > _5436.pdf
> >
> > Audio should be available later in the week.
> >
> > I'd be curious to hear w

RE: Discrimination and divination

[Will Linden]

Ditto

- Original Message -
From: "Scarberry, Mark" 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:37:43 -0800
Subject: RE: Discrimination and divination

> Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread.
> 
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
> 
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
> 
> ___
> 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.

Discrimination and divination

[Will Linden]

 So let me turn Mr. Sogol's "turn-around" around A storekeeper tells 
someone "You are frightening the other customers, leave the premises." 
The party retorts "That's what you SAY, but I KNOW it's really becausee 
I'm gay"-- although sexuality had not previously come up. Does he have to 
prove the storekeeper knew? Or does the storekeeper have to prove the 
negative that he did NOT know?
___
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 pain of discrimination and the role of government

[Will Linden]

 The same way they know someone is homosexual, of coruse.

I have been waiting for explanations of how the alleged horde of bigots who 
are itching for an excuse to "refuse service to gays" propose to identify 
people who presumably do not begin every business transaction by 
announcing "I'm gay!" Unless said customers are on their part 
deliberately looking for excuses for litigation. But THAT couldn't 
happen, of course.

- Original Message -
From: "Finkelman, Paul" 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
> (But, it would be an interesting question if a store in AZ could say, "we 
don't serve Democrats" or "we don't serve Republicans" -- but how would 
they really know?)
>
> 
___
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 exemptions and child sexual abuse

[Will Linden]

This straight out of C.S. Lewis' "Bulverism" essay, where young 
Ezekiel Bulver hears his father argue that the angles of a triangle 
add up to 180, and his mother retort "You say that because you are a MAN!"


At 09:31 AM 6/14/2012, you wrote:
Marci - I don't believe you've stated the facts of a single case. 
I'd say the same thing if you were a man.

Art

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marci Hamilton 
<hamilto...@aol.com> wrote:


I'm not sure why stating the facts in these cases is "rhetoric"   I 
sincerely hope it is not because a woman is pointing out the facts 
rather than a man.  This last statement also is not rhetoric but an 
honest observation.


___
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: Gamaliel: A Historical Question

[Will Linden]

Bredon went to Balliol
And sat at the feet of Gamaliel

  Dorothy Sayers, "Murder Must Advertise"

... followed by "hail you all, jail you all."



On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Ed Darrell wrote:


Sorta off topic question:  How do you pronounce "Gamaliel?"  Is there a story 
to how Warren Harding got that for a middle name?

Ed Darrell
Dallas

--- On Fri, 2/4/11, Wallace, E. Gregory  wrote:

From: Wallace, E. Gregory 
Subject: RE: Gamaliel: A Historical Question
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
Date: Friday, February 4, 2011, 11:36 AM







Tolerationists during the period often referred to Gamaliel. For example, see 
John Goodwin's tract, Theomachia; or The Grand Imprudence of men running the 
hazard of fighting
 against God (1644). Dirck Coornhert is another. (see Gerrit Voogt, Constraint 
on Trial: Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert and Religious Freedom (2000), at 118). 
Also, check out the discussion on theological fallibilism in John Coffey's 
Persecution and Toleration
 in Protestant England 1558-1689 (Longman, 2000) at pp. 65ff.




Greg Wallace
Campbell University School of Law



From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
on behalf of Nathan Oman [nate.o...@gmail.com]



Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:17 AM



To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics



Subject: Gamaliel: A Historical Question






I have a question for those of you who are familiar with early modern, e.g. 
16th and 17th century, debates over religious toleration.  Do you know of any 
writers that used the story of Gamaliel as a justification for toleration.  In 
the NT, Gamaliel is
 a Pharisee who argues against the persecution of the early Christians on the 
grounds that if there work is not of God it will perish but if it is of God one 
would be sinning in acting against it.  Either way, the best course of action 
is toleration.  (See
 Acts 5)  I am just wondering if it was every invoked in polemics about 
religious toleration.







Nathan B. Oman



Associate Professor



William & Mary Law School



P.O. Box 8795



Williamsburg, VA 23187



(757) 221-3919




"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be 
mistaken." -Oliver Cromwell


-Inline Attachment Follows-

___
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.


Will Linden  wlin...@panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Gamaliel: A Historical Question

[Will Linden]

Schaff's History of the Christian Church says that Luther "was willing 
to abide by the test of Gamaliel", but I do not find a primary citation.


On 
Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Nathan Oman wrote:



I have a question for those of you who are familiar with early modern, e.g.
16th and 17th century, debates over religious toleration.  Do you know of
any writers that used the story of Gamaliel as a justification for
toleration.  In the NT, Gamaliel is a Pharisee who argues against the
persecution of the early Christians on the grounds that if there work is not
of God it will perish but if it is of God one would be sinning in acting
against it.  Either way, the best course of action is toleration.  (See Acts
5)  I am just wondering if it was every invoked in polemics about religious
toleration.

Nathan B. Oman
Associate Professor
William & Mary Law School
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187
(757) 221-3919

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
mistaken." -Oliver Cromwell



Will Linden  wlin...@panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Astronomer Sues the University of Kentucky, Claiming His Faith Cost Him a Job

[Will Linden]

The person should also have to write 500 times "'Potentially' does not mean 
'may be'."



At 08:36 PM 12/19/10 -0800, you wrote:

Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

boundary="_000_0C2E309B4F3A894F859CD79B9AB3279A0DE864153ALULIpepperdin_"

Here is a link to Prof. Glenn Reynold's post (on his Instapundit blog), 
with updates that make it appear the astronomer  (Dr. Gaskell) was denied 
a position simply because of his religion and not because of any unusual 
views with respect to science:


http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111718/.

And here is a link to the NY Times story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html?_r=2&ref=science.

Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
___
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 question about the "must give religious exemptions to the same extent as secular exemptions" theory

[Will Linden]

Of course, this is another case of "the press juAt 01:11 PM 5/11/10 -0700, 
you wrote:
I was just reading the London Times and came across this 
item, which 
reminds me of Eugene's recent police leave hypo:


"Police officers have been given the right to take days off to dance naked 
on the solstices, celebrate fertility rituals and burn Yule logs if they 
profess pagan beliefs.


The Pagan Police Association claimed yesterday that it had been recognised 
by the Home Office as a “diversity staff support association” â€" a 
status also enjoyed by groups representing female, black, gay, Muslim and 
disabled officers.


Endorsement would mean that chief constables could not refuse a pagan 
officer’s request to take feast days as part of his or her annual leave. 
The eight pagan festivals include Imbolc (the feast of lactating sheep), 
Lammas (the harvest festival) and the Summer Solstice (when mead drinking 
and naked dancing are the order of the day).


Problematically, the pagan festivals also include Samhain (known to 
non-pagans as Hallowe’en), a day when police leave is often cancelled 
because of the high incidence of vandalism, violence and antisocial behaviour"



Cheers, Rick

Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902


"And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the 
scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from 
the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill)



--- On Tue, 5/11/10, Volokh, Eugene  wrote:


From: Volokh, Eugene 
Subject: RE: A question about the "must give religious exemptions to the 
same extent as secular exemptions" theory

To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" 
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:20 PM

Then why can’t the tolerance for beards in employees whose 
medical conditions counsel against shaving be understood as “an 
affirmative policy” designed to help people who have a medical 
disability, and also to avoid disparate impact based on race?  (Recall 
that the underlying medical condition is much more common among blacks 
than among whites.)




I should think that, if a policy that discriminates between 
parents who send their kids to public schools and those who send their 
kids to private school is struck down, it would be because it 
discriminates against parents who exercise their Pierce parental 
rights.  In fact, if a school gave paid leave for parents to attend 
parent-teacher conferences in religious schools but not secular schools, 
I would think that this would unconstitutionally favor religion.  But 
even setting that aside, couldn’t one equally classify the 
hypothetical policy that allows paid leave for parents to attend 
parent-teacher conferences in public schools as “an affirmative policy 
designed to subsidize public schooling, and parenting of 
employees”?  That’s the problem with this “affirmative policy” / 
“exception” analysis â€" it seems entirely malleable, driven by the 
result courts want to reach rather than driving the result.




Eugene



From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan

Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A question about the "must give religious exemptions to the 
same extent as secular exemptions" theory




I  guess I just disagree that the parental leave policy would be viewed 
as an exception to the work-for-pay policy, rather than as an affirmative 
policy designed to subsidize childbirth and parenting of employees.


If the policy is an affirmative one (as I view it), then it is not 
underinclusive, because all parents with infants are covered.


How about a govt employer who allows paid leave for parents to attend 
parent-teacher conferences in public schools, but not private schools. If 
I am denied leave to attend a conference at my daughter's private 
religious school, do I have a Fr Ex claim under a law that is not 
generally applicable?




Cheers, Rick

Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

"And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the 
scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan 
(from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill)




--- On Tue, 5/11/10, Volokh, Eugene  wrote:


From: Volokh, Eugene 
Subject: RE: A question about the "must give religious exemptions to the 
same extent as secular exemptions" theory

To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" 
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 11:30 AM

I think the analysis below mixes the purpose of the policy with the 
purpose of the exception.  Here’s how I see the structure of the 
policies at issue:


Purpose of the no beard policy:  To preserve uniformity of appearance.
Purpose of the medical exception

Re: Irish blasphemy

[Will Linden]

At 03:23 PM 1/3/10 -0500, you wrote:


the Athiest Ireland blaspheming quotes:

http://www.atheist.ie/


 Can't stand those stuck-up athier-than-thou types.

 I notice that the site is so lacking in national pride that they did not 
have a single blasphemy from Joyce. They should be "expulled for looking at 
churches from behind".


 ___
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: UK Jewish school denies racial discrimination - Yahoo! News

[Will Linden]

It seems to me that the answer to whether Jewishness is "religious" or
"ethnic" changes according to the moment's convenience, to the frustration
of those who find we are "Jewish" enough for any REAL anti-semites, but
not for "the" Jews.

Wm. Linden
"First-degree mongrel" under the Nuremberg Laws.

>It seems to me that discrimination based on being Jewish
> under traditional religious rules is both religious
> discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.  I'm Jewish by
> birth (i.e., my mother, and my mother's mother, were
> Jewish, though they weren't religious) but not religious.
> Under the traditional religious rules, I'm Jewish, with no
> need for a difficult conversion process.  My wife is not
> Jewish by birth, so while she could become Jewish under the
> traditional religious rules, this would require a difficult
> conversion process.  So the exclusion of people who are
> neither born Jewish nor converted to Judaism is
> discrimination based both on ethnicity and religion.
>
>Eugene
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 8:19 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: UK Jewish school denies racial discrimination - Yahoo! News
>
> Indeed. And in order to uphold the racial discrimination charge, does the
> court have to rule that the mother is not, in fact, Jewish, because
> Judaism is defined under British law as an ethnic group rather than a
> religion? That, it seems to me, is the principal error here. If the father
> had converted to Christianity instead of the mother to Judaism, would it
> still be racial discrimination to keep the boy out?
>
> Vance
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Joel Sogol
> mailto:jlsa...@wwisp.com>> wrote:
> So who decides the criteria for being Jewish?  The court or the Rabbi?
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_jewish_school
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Vance R. Koven
> Boston, MA USA
> vrko...@world.std.com
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Quotas for tax exemption?

[Will Linden]

 What about state or city?

  I remember a period under the Beame administration when the Finance 
Administration went on a rampage, looking for excuses to yank everybody's 
exemptions (including the Swedenborg Foundation and the New York 
Theosophical Society). That is also when they tried telling the major 
museums that they were not "educational" because they don't give classes.


At 10:52 PM 10/21/09 -0400, Douglas Laycock wrote:

As Don Clark said, there is no minimum size for a 501(c)(3) 
organization  And ministers have no right to sue over discharge; the whole 
point of the ministerial exception is that churches have absolute 
discretion over who their minister will be.  The courts are in no position 
to second guess that decision, and they have refused to do so.


Quoting Will Linden :

>   Well,  I am bringing up our church's troubles again. The
> dysfunctional minister has been discharged under the termination
> clause, and left frothing at the mouth and vowing to be revenged on
> the whole pack of us.
>
>One of the wrinkles in the latest round of "Telephone" has him
> claiming that we have to maintain a minimum number of members or lose
> our tax-exempt status. (Of course, this raises the question of what
> in vastation HE was doing about it during his tenure.) Is there
> anything to this, or is he just blowing smoke? Is there some clause
> in the !...@!$! New York Religious Corporations Act which could come
> around to bite us? (Again).
>
>  Will ("Organized religion? I'LL give them organized religion!") Linden
>
> 
<<http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden>http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden>




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


<http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden> ___
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.

Quotas for tax exemption?

[Will Linden]

  Well,  I am bringing up our church's troubles again. The dysfunctional 
minister has been discharged under the termination clause, and left 
frothing at the mouth and vowing to be revenged on the whole pack of us.


   One of the wrinkles in the latest round of "Telephone" has him claiming 
that we have to maintain a minimum number of members or lose our tax-exempt 
status. (Of course, this raises the question of what in vastation HE was 
doing about it during his tenure.) Is there anything to this, or is he just 
blowing smoke? Is there some clause in the !...@!$! New York Religious 
Corporations Act which could come around to bite us? (Again).


 Will ("Organized religion? I'LL give them organized religion!") Linden

 ___
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: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms

[Will Linden]

I thought that "werewolves" were men who turn into wolves (or vice versa, 
according to Larry Niven and the Warlock). So what does it mean to "turn 
INTO a werewolf"?


At 09:09 PM 8/6/09 -0700, you wrote:
Many list members whose email programs block attachments may have 
wondered, as I did, what Will Linden's point was. If you let the 
attachment through you will see that it includes his photo, in which, in 
my view, he simply looks respectably hirsute. You may be able to see it below.


With appreciation for Will's attempt to lighten the mood,

Mark Scarberry

Pepperdine

At 04:35 PM 8/6/09 -0700, Will Linden wrote:


explains his belief on the grounds that there's a probability, 
however infinitesimal, that he'll turn into a werewolf, would you be 
satisfied about his qualities?




Turn INTO a werewolf?

 <http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden>

___
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.


<http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden> ___
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: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms

[Will Linden]

At 04:35 PM 8/6/09 -0700, you wrote:
explains his belief on the grounds that there's a probability, however 
infinitesimal, that he'll turn into a werewolf, would you be satisfied 
about his qualities?



Turn INTO a werewolf?

 ___
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.

Firing ministers

[Will Linden]

  The church is facing a showdown with a dysfunctional minister. Although 
his contract has a six-month severance clause, I keep having visions of 
"WRONGFUL TERMINATION". (He is the sort to do it.)


  Are there any special aspects of New York employment law -- or the 
%$!!%!@ Religious Corporations Act -- we should be aware of?


 ___
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.

Pennsylvania clerks

[Will Linden]

Can someone comment on the questions raised here?

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=9398

 ___
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: NY Religious Corporations Law

[Will Linden]

Does any of this relate to the marriage legislation references to 
"spiritual leaders" and "deputy spiritual leaders" which were challenged in 
COG vs Dinkins?


At 11:29 AM 3/13/09 -0400, you wrote:

Will - While not wishing to prolong this, thread, that exactly is my point -
Section 200 of the  RCL has an exception for decisions in the province of a
"spiritual officer" while there is no such carve out under the NPCL.
Arguably, a board of directors ( or a court) of a congregation incorporated
under the NPCL may therefor override decisions of the "spiritual officer."


SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ.
Krieger & Prager LLP
39 Broadway, Suite 920
New York, NY 10006
.
----- Original Message -
From: "Will Linden" 
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law


> >
>>  In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time,
>> smkrie...@verizon.net writes:
>>Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit
>> Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be
>> subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we
>> elevating form over substance??
>>
>>
>>Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox
>> Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold
>> Sabbath sevices on Sunday ??  I would submit not - Davis v Scher , 97
>> N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the
>> Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership
>> opposition.? see,.  Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960).
>
>  And in any case, the rabbi is a "spiritual officer".
>
> Will Linden  wlin...@panix.com
> http://www.ecben.net/
> Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.

___
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.


<http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden> ___
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: NY Religious Corporations Law

[Will Linden]

>
>  In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, 
> smkrie...@verizon.net writes:
>Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit 
> Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be 
> subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we 
> elevating form over substance??
>
>
>Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox 
> Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold 
> Sabbath sevices on Sunday ??  I would submit not - Davis v Scher , 97 
> N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the 
> Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership 
> opposition.? see,.  Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960).

  And in any case, the rabbi is a "spiritual officer".

Will Linden  wlin...@panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Connecticut bill

[Will Linden]

  I have plenty of comments on it, as an officer of one of the "other 
churches", after the court seemed to contrive a new hoop for us to jump 
through every week; but they probably would not get past the moderator. 
"We're from the government, we're here to protect you."


  (Ironically, our church in Boston, where there is no such statute, might 
have benefited from some "protection".)



On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, SAMUEL M. KRIEGER wrote:


Just for the sake of perspective  on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would 
welcome any comments on  Section 200   of   the New York Religious Corporations Law 
(codified in Article 10  applicable to "Other Denominations" - including Jewish 
Congregations ) compared  to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut 
legislation.

--

"§  200.  Control  of  trustees  by  corporate  meetings;  salaries  of
 ministers.

 A  corporate  meeting  of  an  incorporated  church,  whose
 trustees  are  elective  as  such, may give directions, not inconsistent
 with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs  of  the
 church   shall  be  administered  by  the  trustees  thereof;  and  such
 directions shall be  followed  by  the  trustees.  The  trustees  of  an
 incorporated  church  to which this article is applicable, shall have no
 power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or  without
 the  consent  of  a  corporate  meeting,  to  incur debts beyond what is
 necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix  or
 charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such
 church,  except  when  such  trustees are also the spiritual officers of
 such church."  (emphasis supplied)


The provison  has been  in   NY law in some form since 1813 and was  last  
amended in 1909 .


SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ.
Krieger & Prager LLP
39 Broadway
New York, NY 10006



Will Linden  wlin...@panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach

[Will Linden]

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: 
>ACLU Fights for Christians
>
>
>
>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 
>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
> 
>and 
>preliminary
> 
>injunction brief online.
>
>Learn about the 
>ACLU Program on the 
>Freedom of Religion and Belief and the 
>

Re: Suing God

[Will Linden]

I read that the Nebraska lawsuit against God was dismissed. Does anyone 
have the details? News stories say the ground was lack of evidence of 
service. This issue was raised in Mayo vs Satan and his Staff... but I 
think it would not be a problem when the respondent is omnipresent, and not 
just highly maneuverable. (Obligatory popular culture reference.) Perhaps 
"An affidavit from a thunderstorm, or a few words on oath from a heavy 
shower, would be treated with the seriousness they deserve."

___
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: Virginia ban on state troopers mentioning Jesus Christ in public prayers

[Will Linden]

   My first reaction on seeing your subject line, not mentioning chaplains, 
was 'Jesus Christ! What were they thinking of?'

 On reading the story, I was amused by the complaint about Republicans 
"blaming the governor for everything, including tooth decay." As opposed to 
blaming Bush for everything, including the tsunami?


At 11:08 AM 9/26/08 -0400, you wrote:
>Thoughts?
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403471.html?hpid=sec-religion
>
>--
>Prof. Steven Jamar
>Howard University School of Law
>Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice 
>(IIPSJ) Inc.
>___
>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: "Political divisions along religious lines"

[Will Linden]

At 02:32 PM 7/25/08 -0700, you wrote:
>I think there is a lot of merit in what both Chris and Eugene are saying. 
>It is hard to evaluate the political divisiveness issue without including 
>some kind of temporal reference.


   It took a moment to realize that you meant "with reference to time". On 
this list especially, the word is like to confuse people used to thinking 
in terms of "temporal" vs. "spiritual".


___
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: Shielding child whose mother is A from father's B lifestyle/i deology/religion?

[Will Linden]

At 03:27 PM 1/24/08 -0600, you wrote:
  I know I will probably be slapped down on the ground that it is not a 
legal consideration, but isn't judges deciding what will "confuse" the poor 
dears, well, patronizing? I had problems with my parents' pseudo-solution 
to interfaith issues, but I am sure I would have resented a court telling 
me whether I was confused or not.

___
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.

Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?

[Will Linden]

   I have learned of yet another threat to our inclusive society


>Dec 12, 2007 - Bill Action
>Scheduled 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 
>Religion)

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.

Re: Pagan religion

[Will Linden]

   IF "Paganism" is a religion, then "Monotheism" is also A religion (and 
must always be Capitalized.) Similarly with "Henotheism" and "Animism".

   Or are we to be told that polytheists who don't follow the twentieth 
century Garnerian "revival" paradigm are not "real Pagans", in the same 
way that we are constantly told by bigots that Group X are not "real" 
Christians or "real" Jews?

Are atheists who demand that we write "Atheist" "admitting" that 
"Atheism" is a religion? Or are they claiming that there is some superset 
of "religions", all of which are "entitled" to be treated on a linguistic 
par?

   I see that nobody has still bothered to respond to the constitutional 
questions I originally raised, preferring to play dominance games.

___
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 Impaler's Wall

[Will Linden]

   On the other hand, I have had atheists try to explain away the 
lack-of-evils in real-world atheist societies by claiming that Communism 
is "really" a religion. Does this mean that atheism and secular 
humanism are?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Mr.  Linden writes:
>
> 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."
>
>
>Forgive  me, I've been paying only a cursory attention to this
> thread, but does the  above remark apply to "atheism" also? One often hears 
> that
> atheism (like  secularity allegedly ) is just another religion.  Accordingly,
> when  atheists or secularists insist on a religiously-free public square, they
> are  really advocating that their "religions" should dominate the public  
> square
> to the exclusion of Christianity. But if "Paganism" should not count  as a
> religion, it would seem that neither  atheism nor secularity should count as a
> religion?
>
> Bobby
>
> Robert  Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener University School of  Law
> Delaware
>
> Ratio Juris
> ,  Contributor: _  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
> (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
> Essentially Contested  America, Editor-In-Chief
> _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ 
> (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/)
>
>
>
> **See AOL's top rated recipes
> (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304)
>

Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: The Impaler's Wall

[Will Linden]

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."

   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.





>BTW, since Paganism is a religious group, like Christianity, its self-
>identified members should be called Pagans, not "pagans".
>Jean
>On Dec 16, 2007, at Sun, Dec 16,  12:48 PM, Will Linden wrote:
>
> >   Since people are worrying about "the right" having the nerve to
> > extol
> > their own religion(s), I note that I got no reactions to this one
> > back in
> > January, so i post it again::
> >
> >
> >   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."
> >
> >   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?
> >
> >
> > ___
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> > as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> > that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> > can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>___
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Happy Festivus!

[Will Linden]

"Remember, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice and Gurnenthar's 
Ascendance are coming!" -- Magic Box, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER



On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Susan Freiman wrote:

> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=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.
>
>

Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

The Impaler's Wall

[Will Linden]

  Since people are worrying about "the right" having the nerve to extol 
their own religion(s), I note that I got no reactions to this one back in 
January, so i post it again::


  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."

  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?


___
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: Subway incident

[Will Linden]

 It was the occasion for an inane cover headline about "interfaith action" 
in one of the tabloids. I still don't see what it has to do with 
congressional resolutions (or vice versa).




On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote:




In the same vein, is the subway incident true? Certainly could be
true, but I don't recall seeing any news coverage, and the facts are
awfully neat for propaganda purposes, including the Muslim rescuer.
True? Real incident modified to make it better?  Entirely made up? 
Does anyone know?

Quoting Susan Freiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


This just came to me from an atheists' list.  Is it true?

Susan
~~`

*PRESS RELEASE*
*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *The Council for Secular Humanism Chides
Congress for Disrespecting Religions
*
(December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular

Humanism

noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of
Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law,
under the misleading title "Recognizing the Importance of Christm

as

and the Christian Faith" passed the House with overwhelming
bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious
tolerance necessary in these changing times.

Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four
Jewish men in New York City  were attacked on the subway for

replying

to a group of ten people who wished them a "Merry Christmas" with a



similar greeting: "Happy Hanukkah.  For this, these men were first
insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their

physical

defense.  The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution

and

thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the

others

represented by the diverse population of these United States ,
encourages this sort of behavior.

The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the
nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state



in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given
preference. The language of the House resolution effectively
undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere
where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like
second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like

those

four Jewish subway riders in New York .

Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, "It is deplorable that in this day
and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here

in

the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with
preferential language in support of a single religion."  David
Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted,  "Te First Amendment
Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance



that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should

respect

the intent of the Founders."

We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for
religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a

climate

in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally.
__._,_.___



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



Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: alarming new law?

[Will Linden]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote:
>
> As for Rev. Klingenschmitt's claim that the right tolerates all
> religions, nonsense. There are tolerant folks and bigots on both
> sides. For the intolerant right, look at the anti-Mormon hostility to
> Mitt Romney in Republican primaries; recall the protests when a Hindu
> gave the prayer in Congress. In a restroom remodeling project at the


On the other hand, I have not heard of any protests from 
"separationists" over a witch giving the invocation in the Oregon State 
Senate. Mind, it was a very nice invocation.

___
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: alarming new law?

[Will Linden]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Steven Jamar wrote:
>
> BTW, I don't buy Linden's point that the fact that something is in the
> "whereas" clause shields it from criticism.
>
   That's because I did not say so. I said that boilerplate does not have 
any legislative effect. (E.f., that it does not "impose the Law of Noah" 
on the country.)



Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: alarming new law?

[Will Linden]

 
believers and nonbelievers alike are treated 
equally.__._,_.__To post, send 
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get 
password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 
note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone 
can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read 
the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.


Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Anti-gay church verdict

[Will Linden]

That's easy for YOU to say.

At 11:33 AM 11/1/07 -0500, you wrote:

>Bsog
>
>
>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.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:22 AM
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
>
>Could we not ban ALL demonstrations at funerals of private people?
>That would be content neutral.  And we can ban the greater, can we not
>also ban the lesser?  (And you know I hate referencing a Scalian
>argument!)
>
>Steve
>
>
>On 11/1/07, Conkle, Daniel O. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Isn't this analogous to Frisby, approving a ban on targeted picketing as
> > "content-neutral" even though the "privacy" interest being protected in
> > Frisby was, in reality, linked in substantial part to protecting
>homeowners'
> > from being offended by the content of picketers' speech?  In Frisby, the
> > Court cited Kovacs (yes, a regulation of loudspeaker noise indeed is
> > content-neutral) but also Pacifica, which plainly turned on content.
>See
> > also Madsen and the other, more recent anti-abortion picketing cases, also
> > finding prohibitions "content-neutral" when, in reality, a good part of
>the
> > harm being averted by the laws or injunctions in reality depended on
> > content.
> >
> > So, yes, the interest and harm in this case in reality are linked in
> > substantial part to content, albeit content in the particularly offensive
> > context of a funeral, but I can well imagine the reasoning of Frisby and
>the
> > anti-abortion picketing cases being extended to support a
>"content-neutral"
> > conclusion.
> >
> >
> > Dan Conkle
> > ***
> > Daniel O. Conkle
> > Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law
> > Indiana University School of Law
> > Bloomington, Indiana  47405
> > (812) 855-4331
> > fax (812) 855-0555
> > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ***
> >
>--
>Prof. Steven Jamar
>Howard University School of Law
>___
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>___
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

___
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: [spam] Re: And God files a response? (Was: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that ha...

[Will Linden]

   As I noted before, someone already tried to file suit against "Satan and 
his staff" in federal district court in Pennsylvania. This is the one which 
was dismissed on issue of jurisdiction.

And everyone involved seems to take it for granted which concept of 
"God" applies. For instance, if it turns out to be Vishnu, He might do to 
Mr. Lipkin what He, as Narasimha, did to King Hayanakasipu when asked to 
demonstrate His omnipresence.


At 09:17 AM 9/21/07 -0400, you wrote:

>I'm surprised by God's pleading. It puts a theological issue in front of
>the court, which can dismiss simply on the basis of what the jury said
>when acquitting Thomas Maule of seditious libel charges arising from his
>writing of a theological pamphlet: "...the matter therein contained not
>cognizable before them, they not being a Jury of divines, which this
>case ought to be."
>
>Or perhaps the judge could try to empanel a jury of divines? Perhaps
>summoning to jury duty for voir dire folks who consider themselves
>know-it-alls?
>
>I'm also surprised God didn't file an interpleader, bringing
>Lucifer-Satan into the mix. If the latter being hired a lawyer, we'd
>have a chance to observe a genuine devil's advocate.
>
>And that would make Bobby's amicus brief even more delightful to read.
>I'm looking forward to it.
>
>Jim Maule
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/21/2007 7:40:04 AM >>>
>Sorry for inadvertently hitting  "send."
>
>  The  jurisdictional point might be legitimate but surely the
>following
>is not: "It  adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering
>misses an
>important  point.  "I created man and woman with free will and next to
>the
>promise of  immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you,"
>according to
>the response,  as read by Friend." Natural disasters have nothing to do
>with
>"free will."   Rarely, if ever, is free will involved in hurricanes,
>earthquakes, and so forth.  Therefore explaining human suffering by
>appealing to free
>will  fails. Moreover, if millions of people dying in war,
>concentration camps,
>and gulags, and so forth is the price we pay for "free will," whatever
>that
>is anyway, I, for one, might want to return the gift and get my money
>back.
>Now that God has entered the controversy surrounding the suit, I  think
>the suit
>should go forward. Indeed, I intend to submit an amicus  brief . . . .
>
>Somewhere.
>
>Bobby
>
>Robert Justin  Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of  Law
>Delaware
>
>Ratio Juris
>,  Contributor: _  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
>(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
>Essentially Contested  America, Editor-In-Chief
>_http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_
>(http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/)
>
>
>
>** See what's new at
>http://www.aol.com
>___
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

___
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)

[Will Linden]

So, he is protesting frivolous suits... by bringing a frivolous suit?

  As the Heraldry Gazette noted in a slightly analogous situation, "his 
'protest' is one that should appeal to protesters everywhere. No more 
depressing promiscuous marches to Aldermaston -- just jolly bomb-throwing 
sessions."


Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed)

[Will Linden]

Well, if he "criticizes Christians", he must have a full schedule of 
criticizing to do.

  I am continually baffled by how Christian-baiters complain of being 
oppressed by a domineering "majority", while simultaneously talking as 
though "Christians" were something weird and alien, not normally to be met 
with ... nothing to do with those real, live people in the street.


At 09:44 PM 9/18/07 -0400, you wrote:

>Content-Language: en-us
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
>boundary="=_NextPart_000_0186_01C7FA3D.20231E70"; 
>x-avg-checked=avg-ok-39E6C28
>
>Some of the rest of the story is that Sen. Chambers is apparently Nebraska 
>s longest serving state senator, and the AP story includes this info:
>
>
>
>Chambers, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and 
>often criticizes Christians, said he filed the lawsuit to show that 
>anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.
>
>That, he said, was recently illustrated by a federal lawsuit he said 
>triggered his lawsuit against God.
>
>Tory Bowen, 24, sued a state judge who barred the words "rape" and 
>"victim," among other terms, in the trial of Pamir Safi, who Bowen says 
>sexually assaulted her. Bowen said Lancaster District Judge Jeffre 
>Cheuvront violated her free speech rights.
>
>Chambers said Bowen's lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska 
>Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow 
>the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters.
>
>So, while the religious aspect is getting all the attention no surprise 
>there! it may really not be about that at all.
>
>
>
>Sure is going to be fun to watch though!
>
>
>
> Bill Wildhack
>
>
>
>Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle 
>District of Florida
>Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
>Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve
>
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:14
>To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Re: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed)
>
>
>
>   I don't know Chambers reasons for the lawsuit. But just to temper 
> the reaction that he must be mad, Chambers, if I remember correctly, is a 
> wily politician with a good reputation for fighting for his community.
>
>Bobby
>
>___
>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: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed)

[Will Linden]

  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_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.

Prison Book Purge

[Will Linden]

Will I be taxed with straying from legal considerations if I say that this 
looks like a typical government response to exhortations to Do Something?

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

"But that's what it MEANS"

[Will Linden]

   Mr. Jamar claims the position that if a description conforms to what he 
considers the "accurate" denotational meaning of words, we should ignore 
connotations.

 I can not buy this. Some people respond to complaints about labelling 
"cults" by proclaiming what they say is an "accurate" and "objective" 
meaning of the word, and refuse to acknowledge the complete disconnect 
between their "accurate" "scientific" usage and the real world's use of the 
word as a bogeyman label.

  I doubt that Jamar would accept the "accuracy" criterion in regard to 
the "fat Jewess" reference I cited.

   As for something being an "accurate description of their 
behavior". precisely what I have been saying is that it is NOT applied 
to people who engage in identical BEHAVIOR for causes which do not fall in 
the "religion" box. From recent posts, I am sure that I would be 
indignantly "corrected" if I said that Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris are 
"proselytizing" for atheism; and similarly if I applied to people who 
engage in "face to face confrontations", even abuse ones, to demand that I 
change my political and social views, my taste in music, or my choice of 
leisure activities.

 What about people who insist that "Jew" is ipso facto "offensive", 
and insist on "Jewish person" instead? Perhaps Mr. Levinson would enlighten 
us on this, and how it seems to have contributed to the brouhouha over 
Google search rankings and jewwatch.com


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Recent Threads

[Will Linden]

   I can only say curiouser and curiotser. I have never heard anyone say 
such a thing, any more than  saying "*I* belong to a cult". Nor have I 
heard any self-styled-mainline Christians use "proselytizing"  as anything 
other than something reprehensible.

   The most nearly neutral reference I ever heard was "Swedenborgians don't 
proselytize" again, something only They do. (And don't you DARE call me 
"mainline"!)



At 12:16 PM 9/6/07 -0400, you wrote:

>Curious.  I've had many a christian tell me it is their obligation to 
>proselytize -- using that very word.
>
>I don't see anything pejorative in it at all.  It is quite accurate.
>
>On 9/6/07, Will Linden <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote:
>>
>> > Some Christians proselytize; some don't.  Same with atheists.
>>
>>"Proseleytize" is one of those funny words, like "cult" and
>>"superstition", which can only be applied to Somebody Else BY DEFINITION.
>>We share, you preach, They proseleytize.  Consequently, I have dropped it
>>from my vocabulary.
>>
>>
>>
>>Will Linden  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>><http://www.ecben.net/>http://www.ecben.net/
>>Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
>>___
>>To post, send message to 
>><mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>> 
>>
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>--
>Prof. Steven Jamar
>Howard University School of Law
>___
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Recent Threads / "Proselytizing"

[Will Linden]

   My point is that the actual use of "proselytize" is loaded with Finagle 
Factors to exclude identical BEHAVIOR which does not include the speaker's 
wrath. We never hear that "Al Gore came to town to PROSELYTIZE for the 
Democrats!"



At 12:31 PM 9/6/07 -0400, you wrote:


>Christians are commanded to "proselytize" by the Lord: Mattew 28:16-20

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Recent Threads

[Will Linden]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote:

> Some Christians proselytize; some don't.  Same with atheists.

"Proseleytize" is one of those funny words, like "cult" and 
"superstition", which can only be applied to Somebody Else BY DEFINITION. 
We share, you preach, They proseleytize.  Consequently, I have dropped it 
from my vocabulary.



Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think

[Will Linden]

  OK, what are the LEGAL implications of Falwell's death? Or will the list 
just become all-argue-about-Fawell, all the time?



Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit

[Will Linden]

Questions for consideration: Would any of the rulings have been different 
if it had been a Buddhist organization wanting to create a monument to the 
Four Noble Truths?



At 02:37 PM 4/19/07 +0300, you wrote:

So the next step is a monument of an erect phallus next to the image of 
the two tablets of the ten commandments?  Then what about equal rights for 
the women?



PLEASE, no cracks about erecting statues!

  But the "we would have to include all of them argument" recalls my 
previous post, which failed to draw any comments, about the Impaler and his 
plank to

"erect the "Wall of Religious
Beliefs" in the Capital. This wall will have everything
from the Wiccan Rede to the 10 Commandments."

So, aside from the logistical problems of "including all of them", 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?



___
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.

It's Big a Me

[Will Linden]

  Not exactly a religion question, but I thought people hear might know 
some answers.


A recent GetReligion post dealt with the  Times story about underground 
polygamy among immigrants. In  reaction to the line about criminal 
penalties for bigamy, a commenter posted::


"So, what actually constitutes the offense, since we've legalized adultery?

* Publicly declaring multiple marriage?

* Trying to get multiple concurrent marriage licenses?"

  Can anyone illuminate this? How often is bigamy prosecuted? Under what 
circumstances? In which states?


  (And yes, I know that failure to ENFORCE laws against adultery which 
legislators dare not be seen voting to repeal does not mean that it has 
been "legalized" in probably most states. (Connecticut being an exception, 
and being reported for just that reason.)


   My impression is that "bigamy" charges are usually linked to someone 
concealing his marital status from the other party.


   Will, one of whose uncles was "a bigamist... but ONLY in New York 
State, dear,", and could never get a coherent explanation of how this was 
compatible with the Full Faith and Credit clause.




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/07 1:15 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: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customers with alcohol

[Will Linden]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Paul Finkelman wrote:


Sounds like Plessy v. Ferguson to me.  Separate but equal cabs.  No
way.

How far are we willing to take this:  what if they say they won't carry
people who wear a cross a necklace with the Buddha (a pagan symbol for a
devout Muslim); what about a Chistian cab driver who won't pick up
someone with muslim or sikh garb?  It seems to me that this is a civil
rights violation on the part of a common carrier.  The Taxi driver gets
a license to carry peopel from place to place and may not discriminate
on the basis of religion or race or anything else.



 I believe the difference is that there is a specific precept against "its 
grower and its presser and its CARRIER". The other examples do not involve 
any transgression by the *driver*.




Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Lawsuits against SYATP.

[Will Linden]

At 03:33 PM 9/26/06 -0400, you wrote:
I realize that demonizing the ACLU is a powerful fundraising tool for 
groups like the ADF and Liberty Counsel

...and vice versa.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/06


___
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: 19th Century Mormon Polygamy

[Will Linden]

If I remember my references correctly, some of these marriages were "for 
eternity only" (rather than
"for time and eternity"), solely to ensure the woman's status in the next 
world.



t 07:46 PM 9/2/06 -0400, you wrote:


I believe the gender imbalance was in early converst before Utah.
Mormon leaders like Brigham Young married single women who were often
quite old; far from kicking out the 40 year old to make room for the 20
year old, he invited the 60+ year old widow into his home







--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/06



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/06


___
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...

[Will Linden]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Ed Brayton wrote:




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.




Not "throughout". St. Paul's injunction is that a bishop must be 
monogamous. Are we to conclude that this is advocated ONLY for bishops? 
And wasn't Solomon rebuked for "multiplying wives"?



Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Recommendation...

[Will Linden]

Tertullian's "On Monogamy" and related treatises argues against not merely 
polygamy, but remarriage.



At 08:58 AM 9/1/06 -0500, you wrote:

Pardon the Friday interruption, but can anyone recommend a scholarly work 
examining Judeo-Christian arguments against polygamy?


Thanks in advance,
Chris


--
Search from any Web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows 
Live Toolbar Today! Try 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/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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/06



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/06


___
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: Early dismissal for Muslims on Friday

[Will Linden]

At 11:28 AM 5/15/06 -0500, you wrote:



- Original Message - From: "Will Linden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 So, are you suggesting this is really the same sort of thing as 
"minority" religions seeking to add their "representation" to the list 
of alternate-side-parking-exemption days here in New York, whether there 
is any particular need for parking on the days or not?


I think this trivializes the desire to be recognized and respected by 
one's country through some type of acknowledgement of religious difference.


Then what do you call some recent calls by NY atheists to add Darwins's 
birthday to the list? Are they "trivializing" the issue or not?



r wrongly) forward the messages to others.





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/06



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/06


___
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: Early dismissal for Muslims on Friday

[Will Linden]

At 04:55 PM 5/12/06 -0500, you wrote:
I am most familiar with Islamic practice in the Middle East (Iraq, Jordan 
and Egypt).  While Friday is usually taken as part of the weekend in those 
counties, Friday is not considered the Sabbath -- so there is no religious 
obligation to observe the whole day.  I would suspect that the Islamic 
students in this country are seeking an accomodation that, they feel, 
respects their faith in the same way Sabbatarians are 
accomodated.  Moreover, the principle religious service is noon prayers -- so


 So, are you suggesting this is really the same sort of thing as 
"minority" religions seeking to add their "representation" to the list of 
alternate-side-parking-exemption days here in New York, whether there is 
any particular need for parking on the days or not?





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/06


___
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 CharitiesResolution

[Will Linden]

At 08:32 AM 4/7/06 -0500, you wrote:


At any rate, I think the actual proclamation at issue here is unwise and 
poorly worded.  One of its primary purposes seems to be to express the 
Board s and possibly the broader community s animus towards a particular 
religious viewpoint.  And in that it seems like a pretty straightforward 
EC violation.


 Unwise and poorly worded statements from politicians? Naaa

___
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

[Will Linden]

At 11:27 AM 4/6/06 -0400, you wrote:

I don't think San Francisco is making any claims about religious truth or 
falsity.  It is denouncing a practice -- the refusal of an adoption agency 
to treat gay parents equally -- that is, in the City's view, harmful and 
odious (and perhaps immoral).  I think that's perfectly fine -- there are 
many things that organized religions do that are very worthy of 
condemnation, including from state actors.




 It is also making claims about what is "unacceptable", not to them, but 
to the entire population of San Francisco.
   I am irked enough when some private ideologue claims to be speaking for 
"New York" (or some denominational bureaucrat claims to be speaking for 
"Swedenborgians"), but officials are elected to run municipal 
administration, not to be my (alleged) mouthpiece on current issues, and 
this is none of their business.



___
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: Residential picketing ordinance and refusal to give a get

[Will Linden]

TAKE THAT WOMAN OUT AND *GAFIATE* HER!



On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Jean Dudley wrote:



On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:


Hmm.  Did you mean a "git"?  Or an idiot?  Or offspring in general?  :)

Context is all . . .


*blink*

Surely you are kidding.  Even this schiksa knows even a cow is entitled to a 
get if she gets a bum steer.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student
___
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.





Will Linden  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Hindu groups sue state panel over textbooks

[Will Linden]

GetReligion (getreligion.org) has had repeated coverage of this and the 
role of *hindutva* nationalism in the matter, and of how representative the 
groups are of "Hinduism".



At 11:59 AM 3/23/06 -0500, you wrote:


Interesting lawsuit developing in California. Full story at:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14233850p-15055603c.html

Here are the four most relevant paragraphs:

"The Hindu American Foundation's complaint, filed in Sacramento Superior 
Court last week, claims the textbooks, as approved, violate state law by 
portraying Hinduism in a way that is 'demeaning, stereotypical and more 
critical than the presentation of any other religious tradition.'


The group is asking the court to throw out the board's March 8 decision 
and force it to rely instead on the recommendation of one of the board's 
advisory committees, which in December approved a different set of changes 
that two other Hindu organizations had requested.


The complaint of the other group, California Parents for the Equalization 
of Educational Materials, was filed in U.S. District Court on March 14.


In its complaint, the group argues that the state board violated the First 
and 14th Amendments by penalizing Hindu groups for their political 
affiliations and adopting textbook changes that promote Judaism and 
Christianity over Hinduism,"


Allen Asch
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/06


___
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: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.

[Will Linden]

  That is how it looks to me.

   I frequently see alarmists and/or ideologues failing to make any 
distinction between "whereas" boilerplate and operative legislation. One 
such was a lefty who claimed that the Congressional resolution declaring 
Captive Nations Week was "a resolution partitioning the Soviet Union" 
because the boilerplate mentioned states swallowed by the USSR. Another was 
an apparent anti-semite who cited a resolution "honoring" the Lubavitcher 
Rebbe, and claiming that because the boilerplate mentioned the Noachian 
Law, this was legislation imposing the NL as the law of the land.


The language here is so windy it is unclear WHAT they think they are 
saying; but when we look at the operative portion  uh, there isn't one, 
just a paragraph saying public prayer is a Good Thing.




At 07:25 PM 3/3/06 -0500, you wrote:

is this much different from Reagan's [in]famous proclamation that we are 
Christian country?  The resolution seems not to be any sort of law with 
impact -- just some hortatory language about how school-sponsored prayer 
and public-sponsored creches should be allowed.






From: Winston Calvert 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],Law & Religion 
issues for Law Academics 
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion. Date: 
Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:39:35 -0800 (PST)


Here is the text of the resolution:
Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate
concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of
our constituents and exercise the common sense that
voluntary prayer in public schools and religious
displays on public property are not a coalition of
church and state, but rather the justified recognition
of the positive role that Christianity has played in
this great nation of ours, the United States of
America.


--

Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017

Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8428

2900 Van Ness Street 
NW 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]





___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/3/06


___
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

[Will Linden]

At 04:03 PM 1/26/06 -0800, you wrote:
I think you're painting with too broad a brush.  I've NEVER heard any of my 
compatriots EVER call someone a "hateful bigot" simply because they held a 
belief that homosexuality is wrong.  What I've experienced is that name is 
used when such folks refuse to believe that there is a problem, turn a 
blind eye toward hateful behavior.



  That is what you say. It does not square with the "rights protestors" 
brandishing placards proclaiming that "CHRISTIANITY IS THE ENEMY!" (I saw 
it myself no doubt you will tell me that Doesn't Count) or otherwise 
implying that merely believing it is wrong is "phobic". Look harder.


___
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

[Will Linden]

At 07:56 PM 1/26/06 -0800, you wrote:

 Being gay is not about sex.  A person can be gay
and celibate (and indeed many are).


 But this assumes the this-year's-politically-correct doctrine that every 
boy and every gel who's born into this world alive is either a little homo 
or a little hetero. I don't buy it (and neither do self-identified 
"bisexuals"), finding it makes more sense to assume that pervert is as 
pervert does. Otherwise we run into problems similar to those of "hate 
crime" laws (note turning back to legal issues!) which require one to infer 
mental states.


___
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: "Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church"

[Will Linden]

What about the ban on cruel or unusual punishment?


At 07:50 PM 1/17/06 -0500, you wrote:


"All prosy dull society sinners
Who chatter and bleat and bore
Are sent to hear sermons
From mystical Germans
Who preach from ten till four."

The Constitution, though, does seem to be an insuperable barrier to the 
exercise of judicial imagination. Pity.


On 1/17/06, Paul Finkelman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Let the punishment fit the crime?

Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>   Constitutional?  (I assume the sentence was for a racially
> motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not
> literally for [in part] "using racial slurs.")
>
>   Eugene
>
>
> 
http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html

>
> A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for
> six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver
> and using racial slurs.
>
> Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the
> black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said
> he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday.
>
> Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of
> disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab
> driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife.
>
> Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between
> church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would
> offend him.
>
> Haines said he would like to try it.
>
> The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in
> his words, "Church don't change everybody."
> ___
> To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.



--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.




--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/06


___
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.

Non-legal question

[Will Linden]

  Is there some way for non-Outlook-users to filter out the useless 
WINMAIL.DAT attachments? (I use Eudora). Or a way for posters to avoid 
sending them?


___
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.

The Impaler's Wall

[Will Linden]

 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."

 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?



___
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: Alito/The Constitution

[Will Linden]

 Rather, does it mean that he repudiates *sola scriptura*, ascribing equal 
authority to the Sacred Tradition, as conveyed by the Fathers.



At 02:44 PM 1/12/06 -0600, you wrote:

centerpiece of American civil religion.  If I were to rewrite Mr.
Lofton's question, it would be along the lines of, "Does Alito indicate
by this statement that he is an institutional "catholic" inasmuch as he
ultimately gives more weight to what the magesterium (i.e., prior
Supreme Courts) have said than to the original gospel (i.e., the written
Constitution) might best be interpreted to mean?"

sandy


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian RE: Alito/The Constitution

Just a reminder that this list is designed for discussion of the
law of government and religion, not broader debate about constitutional
law or constitutionalism.  Such broader debate may be tremendously
interesting and important -- this list just isn't the place for it.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Alito/The Constitution
>
>
> Anyone disturbed that Judge Alito has said: "I don't agree with the
> theory that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis"? Sounds like

> he's broken his Supreme Court Justice oath before he's taken it. John
> Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com.
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/227 - Release Date: 1/11/06


___
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: 8th Circuit Rules Against Law School Clinic

[Will Linden]

Interesting, but unlikely to get far, considering the cross/Pomona 
precedent in Los Angeles.


Will someone sue Birmingham to take down the statue of Vulcan? (The Vulcan 
Park pages state that the site is "operated by" a foundation, but are 
silent as to who owns it.)



At 08:45 AM 1/6/06 -0500, you wrote:


Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C612C7.75249E08"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1BAE4F54


An interesting 8th Circuit decision came down yesterday ruling against the 
University of North Dakota's Law School Clinic after it refused to 
represent a client-- also a vocal critic of the clinic--  who wanted to 
challenge as an establishment clause violation the display of a statue of 
the Greek goddess of justice on the top of the county court house. I have 
blogged on the case (with link to opinion), Wishnatsky v. Rovner, here: 
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/01/law-school-clinic-loses-in-8th-circuit.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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date: 1/4/06


___
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: Home Schooling and Real Covenants

[Will Linden]

I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch! And if you don't cut it out, I'll turn 
you into a newt!



At 12:23 PM 1/5/06 -0500, you wrote:


Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C6121C.C6C854AD"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-529E6383


Remember your second grade teacher you thought was a witch&..?



--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven

Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:22 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Home Schooling and Real Covenants



Works for me. ;-)

On 1/4/06, Will Linden <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Apropos of nothing in particular, this keeps showing up in my mail summary
as "Home Schooling and Real Coven(s)".

___
To post, send message to 
<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw 



Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.





--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date: 1/4/06


___
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: Home Schooling and Real Covenants

[Will Linden]

Apropos of nothing in particular, this keeps showing up in my mail summary 
as "Home Schooling and Real Coven(s)".


___
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: Regarding "A note about the Atheist Legal Center"

[Will Linden]

While others argue for a "nine million" figure, rather than consider that 
three million gentiles killed don't count.




At 12:38 PM 1/2/06 -0600, you wrote:


OK Larry, just one relatively simple question:

Are you asserting there was not holocaust, that there were no death camps 
and that millions of Jews were not sysmtematically killed by the German 
government from 1939 to 1945 in death camps, concentration camps, firing 
squads, attacks on ghettoes, mobile gas chambers, etc.?


Or are you merely claiming that the "six million" figure is a "lie" 
because many serious scholars would argue for 5.7 or even 5.6 million?


That would be the first step to trying to understand your position.

Paul Finkelman

Larry Darby wrote:
Surely Volokh is smart enough to know that the proper name is ?Atheist 
Law Center?, or is he?  Did he not even visit the company web site?

http://www.atheistlaw.org/news-subscribe.cfm

I now present my views as to Eugene Volokh?s sophomoric attempt at 
[yellow] journalism.  Volokh is not an honest man.  When Volokh contacted 
me about his ?correspondent?, who by the way is an atheist known to me to 
be highly unstable or irrational (i.e. crazy), Volokh did not try and 
hide the fact that he had a conclusion he wanted to present on his weblog 
and that Volokh would not be engaging in ethical journalism or even some 
pretense of an ivory tower academic pursuit. Volokh was out to denigrate 
me, which is par for the course for those who, as Albert Einstein wrote, 
thrive on the oppression they create (see full quote below). I counseled 
Volokh several times that if he wanted to discuss the issues, I would do 
so.  He ignored or rejected my proposals and went on to write very 
poorly, considering he is a ?professor? (or is he ?doctor??), his piece 
that put Volokh squarely in the camp with the Traditional Enemies of Free 
Speech. Volokh seems to think that calling people names or presenting 
other tired canards will stop truth-seekers.
That is not working anymore in the United States, though the advent of 
hate crimes by the Federal and State Legislatures has us well on the way 
of falling in line with the benighted lands of Canada, a handful of 
countries in Europe and one state in Australia, for examples.  More and 
more people are wondering what has happened to our Republic and more and 
more people are awakening from a dumbed-down trance or stupor of 4 or 5 
decades, when it has been politically correct to ignore anything negative 
when, for example, US foreign policy in regard to the Jewish state should 
be discussed, but I digress. (We just blindly continue to pay U$Trillions 
in tribute, as if the US Constitution really is based on submission to 
Jewish law via the Noahide laws.) Preserving the myths regarding ?the 
holocaust?, which is a modern religion for Zionists or Israel-Firsters, 
is what motivated Volokh to write his piece about me, without 
interviewing me or addressing genuine issues.  Criticism of Trotskyism or 
Communism, which is the ideology of the Nonconservatives (Jewish and 
Jewish-Christian Zionists), is what Volokh feared.  He later revealed 
that he had lied to me when he claimed he did not know what ?MOT? means, 
but I digress again, which is easy to do when pretentious ?scholars? 
reveal insidious motives that, if successful, will result in the 
destruction of our Republic or the principles of individual liberties 
forged during the Enlightenment and manifested in the US Constitution.  A 
reason why the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech are quick to holler 
?anti-semite? or ?holocaust denier? or ?anti-Jew? (terms of art for 
Zionists) is that they fear that when a truth-seeker begins looking into 
taboos of Judaism, World Jewry or its organizations, and their global 
endeavors, that their cover will be blown, so to speak.  In my 
investigations of modern mythology, such as the Six Millions Lie, which 
by the way was first trotted out by Zionists during or immediately after 
World War One, there is a nasty aspect that is too often ignored ? that 
of Jewish Supremacism.  I?ve noticed megalomania or superiority complexes 
even with so-called secular Jews.  Even though so-called secular Jews 
reject the existence of YHWH (the Jewish God of War, the surviving god of 
all the gods Jews once worshiped) who made them the Master Race, 
according to the Tanakh, so-called secular Jews are still Jewish Supremacists.


I think Gilad Atzmon sums up how it is:

I argue that once you strip Jewishness of its spiritual content you are 
left with mere racism.  Gilad Atzmon, Israeli-born, raised as a ?secular 
Jew?, who later renounced his Jewishness altogether.  Dec. 21, 2005 in 
San Francisco Independent Media.


A good reference site on Jewish Supremacism (the real racism) is 
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/

Explore it as there are many links within links.
Many Americans are brain-warped to believe that criticizing Judaism or 
Jewry or US foreign policy regarding Israel i

Re: Secularization of Christmas

[Will Linden]

 When Chesterton heard some aesthete mouthing off about "Christianism", "I 
told him that his trouble was tomfoolerism, otherwise called tomfoolerity, 
and I felt an impulsion to pummel his physiognomics out of all semblance of 
humanitude."




At 06:47 PM 12/23/05 -0500, you wrote:

In a message dated 12/23/2005 3:29:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Christianist

Christianist?

Is that as in, of or inclined toward Christanism?  Who are the 
Christanists?  What makes them Christianist?


Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.5/212 - Release Date: 12/23/05


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Secularization of Christmas

[Will Linden]

See Lewis' "Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodotus".

At 06:05 PM 12/23/05 -0600, you wrote:


Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C6081D.B25508C2"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-59FF561


A different Wall Street Journal op ed made a similar point a few years 
ago.  He proposed that we call the religious holiday Christmas, and the 
secular holiday Excessmas.


This is one answer to the question what is the meaning of the December 
holidays, but the putative two holidays are not separated in the public 
mind, and this answer competes with other answers.  I continue to believe 
that the appropriate celebration of Christmas is an essentially contested 
concept.


Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
   512-232-1341 (phone)
   512-471-6988 (fax)



--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven

Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 5:57 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Secularization of Christmas

I think Daniel Henninger had the right idea in his December 16 column in 
the Wall Street Journal (that bastion of religious sentiment). Christmas 
is really two separate holidays and should be so understood and publicly 
acknowledged. The celebration of the birth of Christ is a religious 
holiday observed by a minority of Americans, and observed in passing by 
others. The other holiday, the one with Santa Claus and evergreen trees 
and gift-giving (and gift-buying) and sleigh rides and chestnuts roasting 
on an open fire, that's an entirely secular/cultural holiday that almost 
anybody in America celebrates or can celebrate. It should have its own 
name: let's call it "Yule." Its principal justification is the celebration 
of generosity and good fellowship, which I think most of us can get behind.


The fact that Yule is at some historical remove related to or derivative 
of Christmas is about as relevant as that December 25 was the date of a 
pagan holiday or that humans and Zinjanthropus are biologically related. 
One of the reasons for the draconian Puritan laws in New England 
forbidding the celebration of Christmas was because, centuries ago, the 
Christmas holiday in England and elsewhere had become taken over by those 
celebrating Yule, getting drunk and rowdy. That Yule is fully secular, as 
much so as (more than, I think) Thanksgiving, is surely demonstrated by 
its being celebrated in Japan and China, where there are no Christians to 
speak of.


Thus understood, public displays for Yule should be permitted on cultural 
grounds, but displays relating to Christmas (e.g., creches) should be 
subject at the very least to the rule of multifariousness: OK to 
acknowledge in context with other religious celebrations as part of the 
salad-bowl culture, but not by themselves. Today I passed by the "holiday" 
display in the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, which had a snowman, a Santa 
Claus, a nutcracker (!), and a menorah (!!). If there was anything 
denoting Kwanzaa, I didn't see it. I think the public, and its 
representatives, and its judges, are deeply confused, and a sorting out of 
holidays might help.


Lots of Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and probably Muslim Americans celebrate 
Yule, though they don't celebrate Christmas. For that matter, lots of 
nominal Christians only celebrate Yule. Nobody is obligated to celebrate 
Yule, Thanksgiving, Labor Day, Mother's Day or any other purely cultural 
holiday, but I see no promotion of religion in celebrating any of these. 
The "war over Christmas" is a war over a false definition.


On 12/23/0 (!!)5, Paul Horwitz 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Given the wealth of examples Belz cites, all of which occurred even before
the end of the first week of December, might he not have begun asking
himself whether his operating thesis -- that "the secularists" are
attempting to secularize the Christmas season -- is not itself due for
reexamination, or at least for the application of a little more nuance and
care?  If USA Today, the Hollywood studios, and NPR -- "of all places" --
are all, in one way or another, adding religious content to the public
square, or at least recognizing the centrality of Christmas in many
Americans' lives, then rather than asking whether the "secularists" have
failed "to win their point," might he instead inquire into whether the
attack on Christmas he apparently believes is failing even exists in the
first place, beyond some isolated factoids?


--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subs

Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?

[Will Linden]

This sounds chillingly like the Stalinist insistence that people deserved
to be purged because they were "objectively counter-revolutionary". And
serves handily for labeling whoever the speaker has decided to dislike as
"objectively fascist" or "objectively racist", or perhaps even
"objectively Christian".

>>
>
> Mr. Brayton: I cannot let this go by without comment. I simply
> know too many members of the ACLU and the ABA who are Christian,
> Jewish, Muslim or another
> faith to buy the argument that these are "de facto" atheist organizations.
> Comment: Saying someone is a “de facto, operating” atheist
> means, of course, that it doesn’t matter what this individual
> says he is. What matters is how this person, in fact, operates.

___
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 note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder

[Will Linden]

  I was interested when I saw the like to  a "must-see video" at 
honestmedia.com in his recent post besides trading in Holocaust 
revisionism [deliberately phrased to annoy the PCCops], it includes stuff 
depicting fees for kashruth certification as a "secret tax". It looks like 
the link was not just coincidence (and leads me to speculate why he parted 
ways with the Libertarians).


At 11:11 AM 12/12/05 -0800, Volokh, Eugene wrote:


[F]or the record, Dr. David Duke does offer insight into the
neoconservative or Trotskyist government in Washington, DC. Some of what


  It would surprise every Trotskyist *I* know!




___
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: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked

[Will Linden]

Intended as parody, perhaps, but I find the considerations raised quite 
real (and they have been discussed on the list.)



At 11:42 AM 12/8/05 -0600, you wrote:


The problem is that methodological naturalism prevents us from detecting a
"hate" crime, since "hate" is an immaterial property had by agents that can
only be inferred from behavior, speech, etc. Other minds cannot be observed,
just inferred by analogy, like the traditional argument from design.

Because it is always possible that what appears to be "hate" may very well
be the result of non-agent causes that merely manifest themselves in a way
that appear to be agent caused, attributing "hate" to a cluster of cells we
call a "human being" is just "hate-monger of the gaps." It is an argument
from ignorance because we have not yet discovered the non-agent causes that
made the hate come into being.

[The above is a genre known as "parody."  Please read it that way]

Frank

On 12/8/05 11:01 AM, "Will Linden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Perhaps it reflects what a fuzzy concept "hate crime" is?
>
> At 10:09 AM 12/7/05 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> Thanks very much, but this update seems quite mysterious -- does
>> anyone know *why* the attack is now not labeled a hate crime?  Is it
>> because the police didn't believe that the attack was motivated by his
>> decision to teach the anti-ID class?  Or because such a motivation
>> wouldn't make the crime be, in their view, "motivated entirely or in
>> part by the . . . religion . . . of the victim . . . [or] the
>> defendant's belief or perception, entirely or in part, of the . . .
>> religion . . . of the victim"?
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Meier
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:47 AM
>> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
>> Subject: RE: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked
>>
>>
>> For those who care, an update:
>> http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/07/ne_mirecki/
>>
>> Seems like there might be more to this story.
>>
>> Luke Meier
>> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
>> University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:49 PM
>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>> Subject: Re: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked
>>
>>
>> Shameful and shocking.  This is the story as it appeared in the KU
>> campus newspaper.
>>
>> http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/06/mirecki/
>>
>> I completely agree with the following quote from the article:
>>
>> Sen. Kay O'Connor (R-Olathe), who has strongly criticized Mirecki for
>> his e-mails, said whoever beat him should be "prosecuted to the
>> fullest."
>> "If they try to cover themselves under the mantle of being Christian or
>> being Christian people, sorry Charlie," she said. "They're just thugs."
>> ___
>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 
people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) 
forward the

> messages to others.





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked

[Will Linden]

 As Arthur Dent would say, this must be some strange sense of 
"open-minded" I was not previously familiar with.


At 06:43 PM 12/7/05 -0600, you wrote:

Mirecki's critics then discovered e-mails from a listserv operated by
the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics in which Mirecki
mocked various aspects of Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity.


___
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: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked

[Will Linden]

 Perhaps it reflects what a fuzzy concept "hate crime" is?

At 10:09 AM 12/7/05 -0800, you wrote:


Thanks very much, but this update seems quite mysterious -- does
anyone know *why* the attack is now not labeled a hate crime?  Is it
because the police didn't believe that the attack was motivated by his
decision to teach the anti-ID class?  Or because such a motivation
wouldn't make the crime be, in their view, "motivated entirely or in
part by the . . . religion . . . of the victim . . . [or] the
defendant's belief or perception, entirely or in part, of the . . .
religion . . . of the victim"?

Eugene



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Meier
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:47 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked


For those who care, an update:
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/07/ne_mirecki/

Seems like there might be more to this story.

Luke Meier
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked


Shameful and shocking.  This is the story as it appeared in the KU
campus newspaper.

http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/06/mirecki/

I completely agree with the following quote from the article:

Sen. Kay O'Connor (R-Olathe), who has strongly criticized Mirecki for
his e-mails, said whoever beat him should be "prosecuted to the
fullest."
"If they try to cover themselves under the mantle of being Christian or
being Christian people, sorry Charlie," she said. "They're just thugs."
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked

[Will Linden]

  It may seem "conveniently" timed But as they say, original sin is
the only Christian doctrine wich can be verified by reading the papers.

> I hope the police investigate this assault with great vigor. If true, the
> thugs should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
>
>   But  the alleged circumstances just seem a little fishy to me (the
> timing pf the alleged attack cuts in more ways than one, no?). I hope
> the authorities get to the bottom of this.
>
>   Rick Duncan
>
>
> Will Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   If this is true, I hope it encourages him to sympathize with those of us
> in what he calls "the right wing" who have encountered assault and battery
> as a leftist "argument", rather than acting like so many "liberals" I have
> encountered and/or read whose response is to insist that it didn't happen
> and besides I deserved it.
>
> At 01:30 PM 12/6/05 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C5FA93.329CB639";
>> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-78F44608
>>
>>Kansas Prof. Paul Mirecki, whose scheduled, then cancelled, course
>>opposing Creationism, was discussed on this list a few days ago, reported
>>this morning that he was physically attacked by two men who mentioned his
>>proposed course during the attack. I have a posting on the incident on my
>>blog at
>>http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2005/12/controversial-kansas-prof-physically.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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>*
>>
>>
>>___
>>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
>> or
>>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>
> Rick Duncan
> Welpton Professor of Law
> University of Nebraska College of Law
> Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>
>   "Merry Christmas--It's ok to say it." --Alliance Defense Fund Slogan
>
> "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! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or
> less___
> 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: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked

[Will Linden]

 If this is true, I hope it encourages him to sympathize with those of us 
in what he calls "the right wing" who have encountered assault and battery 
as a leftist "argument", rather than acting like so many "liberals" I have 
encountered and/or read whose response is to insist that it didn't happen 
and besides I deserved it.


At 01:30 PM 12/6/05 -0500, you wrote:


Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C5FA93.329CB639"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-78F44608


Kansas Prof. Paul Mirecki, whose scheduled, then cancelled, course 
opposing Creationism, was discussed on this list a few days ago, reported 
this morning that he was physically attacked by two men who mentioned his 
proposed course during the attack.  I have a posting on the incident on my 
blog at 
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2005/12/controversial-kansas-prof-physically.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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

OT Weird spellings, was RE: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

At 08:44 PM 11/28/05 -0800, you wrote:

 No, Mazel Tov is not "religious", but it is a
Jewish phrase.  And unlike Xtianity, Judaism is not


I keep trying to start a counter-meme on this. but when someone uses 
this code-spelling in a post, there is no way for the readers to tell 
whether the poster is adopting the "it's only an abbreviation, so how can 
you be so dumb as to resent it?" rationale, or the "It should be obvious 
that when I write about the awfulness of 'Xtians' I am referring to a 
particular nefarious subset of Christians, so how can you be so dumb as to 
resent it?" one. This is not communicating, it is PREVENTING communication.


  I even read a diatribe in EARTH RELIGION NEWS which included the 
assertion that "we need" a distinction between "Xtians" and "Xians" but 
did not bother to explain which was supposed to be what, so he must have 
considered it obvious to all thinking beings.


   Perhaps some Democrat, some time, somewhere referred to "the Democrat 
party". That is not why Republicans insist on using it.



___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

At 07:48 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote:

Eugene regards the demand for linguistic abstinence in particular 
cases "as a pretty substantial imposition," I regard it as simply a civil 
response to a personal request. In my view Eugene has too low a threshold 
for what counts as "a pretty substantial imposition." I suppose he would 
say my threshold for impositions is too high.



 I think the "imposition" he refers to is the burden of having to 
constantly worry about whether whatever one is about to say or do has been 
banned by the faceless arbiters of Political Correctness (although, of 
course, Everybody Knows that there is no such thing as PC); or whether one 
intends to do it in a city or state which they have proscribed. ("No 
Chicago!" "Boycott unratified [sic] states!")



___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

At 08:17 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote:

The joke about Hanukah bushes--though perhaps some Jews having 
Christmas trees called them that--is essentially a joke.



My father claimed he had seen someone peddling the left-over trees as 
"Hanukkah bushes". I can't exclude the possibility that he was making it up 
(he being one of those Jews to whom it appeared to mean only NOT being 
Christian), but it sounds like rather far to take a joke to expect people 
to pay for it.


___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

At 05:42 PM 11/28/05 -0600, you wrote:
For what it is worth, I often say "Mazel Tov" to Christian friends 
precisely because the term, to my knowledge, has no religious meaning at 
all.  It is a way of saying "congratulations."  (I think that it literally 
means "Happy day."


I understand that it actually means "good star" (as "shlimazl" is someone 
born under a "bad star"). So what if someone, for religious or scentistic 
reasons, objects to the implied endorsement of astrology? (If there are 
people who object to "God bless you", I am not about to assume there are 
NOT militant anti-astrologists out there.)



  I am unaware of any prayer in the Jewish liturgy that includes the 
words.)  Similarly with "L'Chaim" (To life), which has no necessary 
religious import.  But I agree with Alan that I would not wish my 
Christian friends a "Happy New Year" right before Rosh Hashanah because I 
am aware that it's not their holiday and, indeed, they might regard it as 
a bit bizarre, like asking them if they're having a


The Christian "new year" was on Sunday (and I like to freak the mundanes by 
shouting "Happy New Year!")



___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

At 02:37 PM 11/28/05 -0800, you wrote:


As for being offended by having someone wish me a Merry Christmas. I
don't get offended. But like most people, I appreciate being positively
acknowledged for who I am and what I believe. I don't experience that
when people tell me Merry Christmas.


And what gives you the impression that believing Christians experience 
being "positively acknowledged" by being told "Merry Christmas" by people 
we doubt have any appreciation of its "true" significance, and probably 
repeat empty syllables as a matter of rote? You might as well consider 
"Godblessyou" at a sneeze as a positive acknowledgement of religious 
convictions. (And yes, there are atheists who at least claim to be offended 
by THAT.)




___
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: Once Upon A Time When America Had Christmas

[Will Linden]

At 09:30 AM 11/28/05 -0800, you wrote:

Rabbi Aryeh Spero has this interesting 
column online at 
Human Events. I don't know Rabbi Spero, but I very much enjoyed his little 
cautionary tale set in December 2030.



 Well, I find R. Spero's complaint about his co-"religionists" who seem to 
define themselves as "not Christian" eminently "defensible", having had to 
literally live with the problem.


   On the other hand, he slipped up with assuming that "Eid" (without 
saying which one) is one of the "winter holidays". As Islam has a pure 
lunar calendar, any coincidence of their holy days with anyone else's in a 
particular year is just that, coincidence.


___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

At 04:25 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote:


Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C5F462.415EB085"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4AE42950


I do not mind being wished a Merry Christmas by comparative strangers, 
even though I am Jewish and do not celebrate Christmas. I understand their 
good intentions and appreciate them.  Acting as if the season did not 
exist in my presence would be ridiculous.  People who know me well rarely 
give me that greeting, and usually wish me a happy holiday season. I am 
more annoyed at Hanukkah postage stamps and greeting cards that attempt to 
equate Hanukkah with Christmas, and even moreso at the syncretistic cards 
that carry pictures of Santa and dreidels and say "happy whatever".  I 
think is is great that the Christian majority celebrates Christmas. I 
enjoy looking at Christmas decorations in friends' homes. But it should be 
understood that Christmas is a Christian holiday, not a universal one.





  "Whose faith is the right one? Anybody's guess!
  "What matters most is camera phones
  "For $20 less.
  "Happy Chrismahanukwanzakah to you!"
  (--Flash presentation on the Web)

   And a happy Festivus to you.


I am reminded of a story a Jewish friend told me.  When asked by a 
co-worker, "What in the world do you do on Christmas?", he replied, "The 
same thing you do on Yom Kippur."


*
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*



--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 11/28/2005 4:03 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

I would prefer not to be wished a Merry Christmas and when I 
lived in Lincoln, Nebraska I would often politely tell people I don't 
celebrate Christmas (but that, of course, has changed since I married a 
Christian). However, I don't think anyone has yet tried to indicate why 
someone might bristle at the greeting. What is the feeling or the 
experience behind it? Speaking for myself alone, and speaking 
hyperbolically, my preference not to be wished a Merry Christmas can 
perhaps be captured by a feeling at the moment (a brief moment to be 
sure) of being at least partially invisible to the Christmas greeter.  I 
suppose it's similar to the way women might feel in a class, say, where 
they are a minority when the instructor greets the class with "Gentlemen."


I don't think encouraging or discouraging bristling gets to the 
heart of the matter.  I doubt that there is a perfectly neutral greeting 
or that if there is one that it would be desirable to urge everyone to 
adopt it. I do think, however, that this is just an example--a very minor 
one to be sure but of a kind with more egregious, damaging ones--of 
people not reflecting on the quite general issue of how their conduct 
affects others, especially how it affects minorities. If Islam should one 
day become a supermajority religion in the United States, I do not think 
Christians would welcome being greeted by Muslims with whatever the 
appropriate holiday greeting is in Islam. As a Jew I wistfully wish that 
Christians would not wish me a Merry Christian nor Muslims in my 
hypothetical wish me an enjoyable Muslim holiday.  But I would not now 
express this to either the Christian or the Muslim who did so.


I remember a discussion with Michael Perry once who insisted that 
"Merry Christmas" has become a secular greeting, if I remember his claim 
correctly.  My short reply was: "Not to me."


Bobby
(Without my bad ole unreliable but familiar computer)

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 11/27/05


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messag

Re: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

So go ahead. Make my day. Wish me a Happy Hanukkah, and I'll be gratef! ul 
you care enough about me to share something that means a lot to you and to 
your community.



 "Remember, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice and Grunthar's 
Ascendance are coming!" (--sign at the Magic Box on BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER)


___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

At 04:50 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote:

Should the sender try to respect the receiver or should the receiver 
respect the sender?  This is a faulty dilemma, isn't it.  Respect should 
go both ways.


I try to send holiday greeting cards that reflect my values while not 
impugning another's religious beliefs.  So UNICEF cards and other secular 
cards with "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" or simply "Peace on 
Earth" are my choice.
  The last time I saw the official UNICEF/UN cards, the Russian version 
actually was a Happy New Year (s noviim godom) message. So they are 
"excluding" people who do not follow the Roman (not "Christian") calendar. 
Bad professor! No latkes for you!


But I think that the public space is very different from the private 
space.  I do not see many crescent moons or stars of David being donated to 
the public square for the edification of us all.


 Here we see a fair number of menorahs (From Chabad, I think?)

___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

Another thing we "bristle at" is complaints that evergreens, men in red 
suits and candy canes (As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up) and 
"televised wise men singing the praises of the Lord/ Calvert Whiskey" are 
"Christian symbols".
   Some say that referring to pagan origins for any of these is committing 
"the genetic fallacy". But by the same reason, those who claim that their 
use in the Winter Department Store Sale is ipso facto "Christian" are also 
guilty of "the genetic fallacy".


   Actually, the Christian-baiters (although I have repeatedly been 
instructed that there is no such thing) not only assume the right to tell 
us what our symbols are (Would (rabbinic) Jews submit to goyim defining 
"Jewish symbols"?), but want it both ways. If they like evergreens and 
red-suited deliverymen, they are pagan symbols which have been "stolen" by 
this reprehensible Christians. If they do NOT like them, they are Christian 
symbols which those reprehensible Christians are "imposing" on them.


___
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 Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Will Linden]

  I am "annoyed" by the assumption that I observe something called "Holiday".
  Tomorrow Mayor Bloomberg lights the "Holiday Tree". I suppose that they 
will sing "We Wish You   a Merry Holiday", "I'm Dreaming of a White 
Holiday", and "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Holiday".


   "Please! Please don't wish me a Happy Holiday!"

   Does this count as "bristling"?

   (Parenthetically, something which really baffles me is hearing "The 
Vicar of Bray" included in the Holiday Muzak.)


At 03:28 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote:

"I am also extremely annoyed by businesses tha direct employees to wish us 
only a generic "Happy Holidays" while simultaneously attempting to profit 
by selling Chrstmas presents to millions of Christmas shoppers."


Yes, it is annoying, isn't it -- and inexplicable, from a business 
standpoint -- when businesses stop presuming that all their customers are 
Christians.




___
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: Madison on Abridge and Prohibit

[Will Linden]

Yes. As Monty Python has it, "I came here for an argument. This is just 
contradiction." And we can now only wait for Godwin's Law to kick in.


At 11:24 AM 11/23/05 -0600, you wrote:



The post below, although it claims victory, is utterly nonresponsive to 
Madison's express rejection of any distinction between "respecting," 
"abridging," and "prohibiting."


___
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: Discrimination

[Will Linden]

  Your repeated invocation of "Webster's" seems to claim that there is a 
One True Dictionary, which is to be accepted as legal authority.


Webster's Third International does not contain the word "totally" in 
either definition of "prohibit". But perhaps that is not the "Webster's" 
that Madison purportedly "expected" people to use?


At 03:34 PM 11/21/05 -0600, you wrote:


Professor Laycock,

Without use of the word "totally" I understand the meaning of 
"prohibiting" as meaning totally. I do not find a different definition of 
what "prohibiting" means in Webster's.


___
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: Discrimination

[Will Linden]

 No, because you have not explained how "exercise" and "free exercise" are 
different. If anything short of "total" prohibition (per your invocation of 
the Word of Webster) is constitutional, you seem to be saying that the 
"free" in "free exercise" has meaning only as a sort of "most favored sect" 
clause.


At 09:32 AM 11/19/05 -0600, you wrote:


Will,

Sorry for the delay in response. I have been in Branson the last two days.

Religion, as such, in not the business of government. As James Madison 
wrote in his "Detached Memoranda" (noted in Everson v. Board of 
Education): "Strongly guarded ... is the separation between Religion and 
Government in the Constitution of the United States" (William and Mary 
Quarterly, 3:555).


Congress shall make no law which establishes religion or prohibits the 
free exercise thereof. Government cannot prohibit religion exercises or 
actions merely because they are related to religion. However, government 
can make laws which are "neutral and of general applicability." Religion 
actions are thereby subject to the same laws of the land as nonreligion 
actions. Religion action is no more accommodated or exempted from general 
law than is nonreligion action.


The First Amendment does not say the exercise of religion cannot be 
abridged. The exercise of religion can be abridged in terms of the general 
laws of the land. Words mean things, and the men who drafted and approved 
the religion commandments were neither discriminatory nor inconsistent in 
their deliberate distinction between "prohibiting" and "abridging."


Legally, animals are killed for sport, food, and religion. In Lukumi 
Justice Kennedy ruled properly.


In contrast to your USSR example, in the USA, religion cannot be 
established anywhere by law or government, but religion openly flourishes 
because government cannot prohibit (totally) the exercise thereof. All 
actions, regardless of religion, can be abridged by laws which are 
"neutral and of general applicability." Religion is not above the rule of 
law, except in matters of opinion. It is speech, press, peaceable 
assembly, and petition which shall not be abridged.


Have I responded properly and adequately to your question?

Gene Garman

Will Linden wrote:
Does your contention that religious exercise can not be "totally 
prohibited", but can be "abridged" mean that "Lukumi" was wrongly 
decided, since the city banned all "religions" from engaging in aniumal 
sacrifice? Or do you leave room for the "religious gerrymander" argument?


 Don't we run into the argument (along the lines of Forsyte vs. 
Bossiney) that "abridged free exercise" is an Irish bull?


 And how does this keep us from landing Back In the USSR, where you had 
all the "religious freedom" in the world "within the limits of the law" 
as long as you confined it to your own room? After all, that was not a 
"total prohibition"!




At 06:59 AM 11/17/05 -0600, you wrote:

To the contrary, Gene. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the exercise 
of religion cannot be totally prohibited, which is a part of what 
America is about. Everyone is free to exercise religion, within the 
limits of the law. In America it is the law which is supreme, not religion.


___
To post, send message to 
<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>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 Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/173 - Release Date: 11/16/05


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech

[Will Linden]

Does your contention that religious exercise can not be "totally 
prohibited", but can be "abridged" mean that "Lukumi" was wrongly decided, 
since the city banned all "religions" from engaging in aniumal sacrifice? 
Or do you leave room for the "religious gerrymander" argument?


 Don't we run into the argument (along the lines of Forsyte vs. Bossiney) 
that "abridged free exercise" is an Irish bull?


 And how does this keep us from landing Back In the USSR, where you had 
all the "religious freedom" in the world "within the limits of the law" as 
long as you confined it to your own room? After all, that was not a "total 
prohibition"!




At 06:59 AM 11/17/05 -0600, you wrote:

To the contrary, Gene. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the exercise of 
religion cannot be totally prohibited, which is a part of what America is 
about. Everyone is free to exercise religion, within the limits of the 
law. In America it is the law which is supreme, not religion.


___
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: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech

[Will Linden]

Strange, I got just the opposite impression from Gene's exegesis that 
religion can not be "prohibited totally", but can be regulated and 
restricted to the point of evisceration, as long as this is done to "all" 
religions.


At 10:31 PM 11/16/05 -0600, you wrote:


If, as you state, the "exercise of 'religion' . . .cannot be prohibited
(which means totally--see Webster's)" in any way, shape or form, as you
suggest, then if my religion requires human sacrifice and I kill someone
as part of a religious rite, I'm exempt from the laws against murder?



Gene Summerlin
Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C.
210 Windsor Place
330 South Tenth Street
Lincoln, NE  68508
(402) 434-8040
(402) 434-8044 (facsimile)
(402) 730-5344 (mobile)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.osolaw.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene Garman
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech

How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?

As a strict constructionist of the Constitution and in rejection of some
confused Court opinions, there is no conflict between the religion
commandments of the Constitution. The men on the committee which
produced the final wording of the First Amendment understood proper
English, wrote what they meant, and meant what they wrote. Understanding
the words as written, in respect to the First Amendment, "religion"
cannot be established by law and the exercise of "religion" (which is
the grammatically correct understanding of "thereof") cannot be
prohibited (which means totally--see Webster's).

It is speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition which cannot be
abridged (which means reduced--see Webster's). Speech--like press,
assembly, and petition--cannot be abridged, however everyone is
obviously liable for damage caused by speech, press, assembly, or
petition.

There are no exceptions to the religion commandments of the
Constitution, whether the Establishment Commandment or the Exercise
Commandment. The Free Exercise Commandment is not a license for anarchy.

Not one word of the Constitution authorizes anarchy. Religion actions
are not above the law. The laws of the land are to be obeyed, regardless
of religion. Discrimination does not exist as long as the law is applied
equally to all, regardless of religion. Discrimination exists when
religion actions or speeches are exempted from laws of the land which
apply equally to everyone, regardless of religion.

Gene Garman, M.Div.




___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

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

[Will Linden]

At 12:47 PM 11/7/05 -0800, you wrote:
1. These people are strangers. If someone I knew began to proselytize 
their faith in conversations with me, I would be offended. I work with 
people of many different faiths on religious liberty matters and


etc, etc.

  Not legal points, but I can not take this any longer. Throughout my life 
I have been subjected to attempts by classmates, co-workers and other 
associates to change my political views, ranging from "Who ya voting for" 
and extended browbeating for giving the "wrong" answer, to insisting at 
length that my views are both evil and stupid, that I am a "Fascist" and a 
"racist", and on and on... But they are never berated for "proselytizing". 
Why is it so reasonable to non-Christians to react violently to being told 
that their religion is wrong and to demand a gag rule, but unreasonable to 
react with anger to being told such things and demand that they be 
silenced? Or to being told that "Christianity is anti-semitic", never mind 
that I am "Jewish" enough for any REAL anti-semites (as opposed to the ones 
my father kept seeing under the bed)? Why isn't this "proseleytizing"?


   No doubt this will elicit another string of "that's DIFFERENT" 
rationalizations.


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

OT: Social Notes from All Over

[Will Linden]

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

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



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


 What was Sandy's substantive point?

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


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

Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
   512-232-1341 (phone)
   512-471-6988 (fax)



--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson

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



Ms. Mary Cheney
Ms. Heather Poe (Guest)

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




sandy
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.




Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or 
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle


"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or 
numbered." --The Prisoner



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

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


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


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.