Does not US v Ballard (US 1944) state the applicable rule-which is
(unsurprisingly) the rule Doug proposed?
Marc Stern
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Tuesday, August 04,
Sorry, my earlier post was not clear - by Church in quotation marks I meant
the defined term in the statute, not the word Church on the card. I agree
completely with Doug and Marc. My point was only that if the Mass card said
e.g. that a mass had been arranged to be said in a Roman Catholic
Francis Collins has been selected to be the head of NIH, where he will have
substantial authority to allocate the nation’s scientific research funding.
There are a few criticisms of Mr. Collins being made regarding his religion.
For this list, I wanted to set aside a specific criticism.
As a legal matter, the claim that someone's religious views are
disqualifying comes close to, if not actually constituting a prohibited
religious test for public office especially as the NIH to which Collins
was nominated is a federal institution subject to the tests clause
directly.However there
Isn't one of the lines to draw whether the idea is scientifically testable or
not? We can make scientific observations now about whether the world rests
upon turtles, but we cannot observe the birth of Christ.
Also query whether the natural order we've been discussing isn't overly
Newtonian
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?
http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden
