conservative
evangelical Methodist minister the other day who has no problem at all
with evolution but does have lots of trouble with the perceived lack
of bible-based instruction in school in general -- but evolution is
not the problem.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Eugene pointed out that I was being a bit loose with my characterization of Reagan's proclamation -- the actual proclamation was for the Year of the Bible with statements about the Bible being a foundation of our Constitution and such. It is, naturally, carefully worded with the most potentially
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
Well, I don't see christianity becoming a minority religion in the US any time in my lifetime or my grandchildren's. Unless, of course, one excludes Spanish-speaking Catholics from being Christians.On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a fairly straightforward
If I teach that the modern law of international human rights stems from the inherent worth and dignity of each person, and not from god-given natural law, I offend a number of students.When I teach freedom of religion and that constitutionally the state is to be neutral, I offend a number of
1. Some opponents want ID out of the schools entirely. Not all or even most of us.2. Brad, do you contend that it is constitutional for a public school to offer a course with the intention of advocating a particular religious belief? That is what this course was.3. Some ID advocates want
I don't think is so hard to enforce. Most people most of the time follow guidelines and this should be no different. We should not ban something just because sometimes people stray across a fuzzy boundary inadvertently or just because some people will intentionally try to abuse the guidelines
a land use regulation as defined in RLUIPA (and state action for purposes of the Constitution). Cheers, Rick Duncan Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick,Doesn't the same logic apply to contract law? Contracts are enforceable under law, like restrictive covenants, but are essentially priva
On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:I agree with Michael that courts may be reluctant to adopt my view of the law of running covenants as a type of zoning regime (actually it is not mine, I have heard others make a similar argument as a better way to understand Shelley). But again,
The Washington Post today reported that the Dover School Board officially revoked the ID policy.Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Christopher C. Lund wrote:Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science "because it is a constrained discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full picture of Truth." If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar mean unconstitutional?),
Interesting that you think that a judge's job does not include being aware of the political impact of his or her decision!Am I correct in inferring, then, that you consider Brown v. Board wrongly decided on the merits and wrongly written in form and wrongly decided within the Court's processes
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The Dover case has me so confused that I can’t see what its implications are beyond its narrow facts. A couple of questions came to mind as I read it. Maybe someone can help me sort them out. 1. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said
something can be true without being the full truth.2+2 = 4. That is true.But it does a poor job of fully describing nature. Or math.SetveOn Dec 21, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Perry Dane wrote: This doesn't strike me as quite right. It seems to me that real science should also not, in the public
Not having read the transcript, I don't know how the experts introduced themselves or wanted to be addressed or were addressed by counsel. I suspect that Judge Jones was just following the testimony on this one. In my experience judges always referred to the witnesses as they requested to be
Also remember this was a court trial -- no jury -- so this distinction matters little in that sort of way.On Dec 21, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Steve Monsma wrote:But it stretches credulity that all the defense expert witnesses wanted to beaddressed as "professor" and all the plaintiff expert witnesses
Maybe they teach science differently now than when I went to school and when my boys (now ages 19 and 22) went to school, but science was inherently taught as conditional and subject to testing and change. There are things that are known facts, but there is a lot that is still unexplained -- the
The Washington Post has an article on this today (Tuesday, Dec. 20)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901802.htmlone of the interesting quotes:Today, secular Hollywood gives us Christmas shows and Christmas specials without end, not to mention Christmas-themed
Interesting point, Bobby, but since the claim is that ID is science, how does the court avoid the issue? This is just the obverse of the courts needing to decide, howsoever much discomfort is involved for all of us, what is religion from time to time, isn't it?And the court did not say that "only
Jim,As you well know, judges can form opinions after hearing the evidence. And the 139 pages supports his conclusion in that even-tempered nature, free of bias, and with care-and-sensitivity- to-the -school-control-issues manner you are say you are concerned about.Sorry you couldn't be bothered
I think you may be being too abstract here, Mark. And I'm certain that you are exaggerating the impact of such language on the view of the electorate of how the government should work, whatever that may in fact mean.When a legislative body acts in a way that runs afoul of the Constitution, the
A liberal education and a willingness to get educated to make such assessments. And an understanding that we always act on imperfect knowledge and understanding and an understanding that in some instances it is at least as important that things get decided as that they get decided correctly.The
Who would appeal this case? Not the current Dover School Board which, if I understand things correctly, revoked the policy and announced that they would follow the court's decision.Who else has standing?SteveOn Dec 20, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Ed Darrell wrote: Judge Jones was probably wise to
But the education one gets allows one to learn what must be learned to make an informed decision. It is not the degree, but the broad education and the ability and openness to further learning that matters. Not everyone has the intellectual horsepower to make these judgments in the way we might
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:27 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Dover Intelligent-Design Case Who would appeal this case? Not the current Dover School Board which, if I understand things
Was it a willful bad faith violation, or ignorance and misled? I don't think they were trying to flaunt the constitution so much as they were interpreting it with wishcraft -- crafting the law to fit their wishes. I would not think punitive damages are appropriate for inanity in
But damages not awarded against the board members in their individual capacities.Fees and costs do not qualify as damages; nominal damages are damages.On Dec 20, 2005, at 6:03 PM, James Maule wrote:"The Defendants include the Dover Area School District (hereinafter"DASD") and Dover Area School
sort of like discriminating in health benefits on the basis of pregnancy is not sex discrimination. . . . On Dec 5, 2005, at 5:28 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Interesting story, but it seems to me that the headline is quite misleading. Here are the most relevant excerpts from the case:Benitez filed
Do we reify a document or the ideas in it or the way it is put into practice? The Declaration of Independence has some pretty good ideas and as a historical document is very important and justly respected. As is the US constitution. But both documents have flaws inherent in them, in there
Hate speech should be able to be regulated. The problem is finding the right standards and distinguishing between what is to be permitted and what banned. We should be able to enforce some minimal standards of public decency in our discourse. But, I have such little confidence in people in
Obviously Rabbi Spero has been to quite a different mall than I went to recently . . . .But these silly looking-back tirades have been circulating for decades, at least. I remember my father showing me a revised Little Red Riding Hood with the wolf as the victim -- as a critique on the liberal
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
Don't any of you have kids in school suffering through this stuff? Teachers of biology have a hard enough fight on their hands without the books themselves telling the students not to give it any credence.Even after a year of evolution-infused biology, students still believe in their home-grown
The Christmas tree is, well, a Christmas tree. It is more than associated with a winter holiday -- it is a pointer to a particular religion. It is an endorsement of that religious tradition. It has acquired "an inherent religious meaning." To say otherwise is quite disingenuous, it seems to
My older son calls Christmas by an alternative name: "Give-Presents-to-Athiests Day."We celebrate Christmas as a family gathering. Some find it religious. My older son and I don't.SteveOn Nov 28, 2005, at 6:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:10:51 PM Eastern
We do not ban teaching that illness is caused by spiritual malaise or misalignment with the essence of the universe or any of a huge number of non-germ theories. That is the more close analogy to ID -- first causes or causes outside the realm of scientific explanation.I recall being taught the
I think Doug has stated this well. But perhaps it understates the challenge presented by evolution -- if science can explain so much, then what is left? It also understates the challenge to the Biblical literalists -- if evolution is correct, then the Biblical story is wrong. If the Biblical
Well, a course being offered by a faculty member at a university which
teaches just about anything is not going to be treated as governmental
establishment is it? Surely a university professor could teach that
all religions are bunk without the professor or university running
afoul of the
Mr. Garman, You are missing the point made by Gene Summerlin, at least as I understand it. He is not asserting that his extreme reading is any more accurate than yours, just that like yours, it is a possible, but not the only possible, reading.There are many, many cases in which the Court has
On Nov 21, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote: If "prohibiting" so clearly meant "totally," Gene would not have to insert "totally" into the sentence everytime he quotes it and tries to explain it. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705
Steve,Government can restrict people from putting religion or nonreligion beliefs into action. No discrimination involved. Specific religion and nonreligion actions can be prohibited or abridged by the laws of society. The question is not under what circumstances government can do so. Government
The question is not whether the government can restrict people from putting into action certain beliefs. It can. The question is under what circumstances the government can do so. Gene takes an approach that gives the government a lot of room to limit exercise of religious beliefs, as did the S
Seems a simple case of people gone nuts again. Almost as nuts as the
Christians who are trying to ban the book because it is anti-Christian
due to the use of magic and witches and such. I guess their theory is
that allowing it to be read is establishing religion -- by exposing
kids to something
I have a black belt in the game of go. Does that count? :)SteveOn Nov 7, 2005, at 8:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/6/2005 9:17:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So let’s understand – the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell,
Interesting and helpful analysis Eugene.However, I do not think that religious speech is coextensive with other speech or needs to be so considered. Restricting religious speech is not the same as restricting other speech. One cannot write the EC out of the analysis even in something that mostly
Fortunately most Christians do not feel the need to go around telling the rest of us we are damned to hell and so the problem is less bad than it could be. I must respectfully disagree with Rick's attempt at a more subtle and sophisticated (and I think accurate) reading as being what I have
Is the burden to be borne by those of the non-Christian minority or is there a burden on the hugely dominant Christian group to show tolerance and even acceptance and inclusion of non-Christians?Of course this is not fully an either/or situation, but I think the majority has an obligation toward
For not wanting to be picky, that was picking nits.But in the same vein, if what the court has done (as opposed to what the media and interest groups have done with what the court has actually done) is create that impression, and that impression is wrong, then the solution is to do something
I think it is a good thing for kids to be exposed to various views.I do not think it a good thing for students to disrespect others' views. There is a difference between witnessing one's own beliefs and telling another what to believe. There is a meaningful distinction between telling someone
Interesting case, Rick. Thanks for posting it. I wish that the media and the right wing pundits would accurately state the law about religion at schools -- then maybe fewer people would misunderstand it. And I sure wish that administrators would be told the right rules in a way that they would
In my 30+ years of supporting the ACLU in general and local chapters of it, I would have to say that to claim they have been fully consistent on any particular narrow issue either in any given year or especially over time would be quite an overstatement of it. But, in general, the ACLU really
Brad, Must be your HS was different from mine -- cliques reigned supreme at mine -- no matter what it was built around, an orthodoxy develops in them. So it would not at all surprise me to see most of the students involved doing exactly that, if the leaders of the group were doing it.See the
CLS can form a group if they comply with the same rules as everyone else.The question is not whether they can form a compliant group, but whether the constitutional freedom of religion requires the state university to allow a non-compliant group to have state sanction. Maybe it does. As a
easier to lampoon if one removes the context. I stand by my full post.On Oct 20, 2005, at 11:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/19/2005 9:47:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the rule is the other way, where does it end? What distinguishes
Just because some state exempts religious organizations from liability for some forms of discrimination does not mean that all states must do so or that all types of discrimination that the religious organization claims impinge on its claim of boundless latitude in its actions need to be
I agree that compellingness is lost when very few government entities adopt such laws or when many others exempt certain organizations from needing to comply. So the state could not overcome any constitutional restriction based on compelling state interest analysis.However, a state does not need
If the government gives a benefit, it cannot do so in an unlawful or unconstitutional way. And the law certainly is not that only actions targeting religion are unconstitutional. But it is too facile by half in my opinion to simply assert that any time there is a burden on religion strict
On Oct 19, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: Every campus has a percentage of its student body which would be ineligible for membership in some organizations. Are the College Republicans required to be allowed to join the College Democrats and serve in leadership? Is a campus pro-life group
, but it also protects non-religious groups, such as ensuring that College Republicans (or Democrats) are, in fact, Republicans (or Democrats). Basic freedom of association at the very least, not to mention freedom of religion for the religious student organizations. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005
e in Smith and reduced it to anti-discrimination protection, and that does not bode well for religious freedom. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 05:48:36 PM: A generally applicable law or policy applies generally. So saith the Supreme Court, or so I thought.You cannot discriminate on
I'm no fan of Smith or Rosenberger. And the field is problematic, to put it mildly.But, why must the state fund an organization dedicated to violating its lawful rules? Not just speaking about them or believing them to be wrong, but violating them in conduct?The discrimination is not based on
On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Gene Garman wrote: Jim, The Founding Fathers severely limited religion influence in respect to public office when they commanded: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The First Congress
There is a difference between something being in a publicly accessible archives and it being rebroadcast/reposted in terms of accessibility in general.There are also copyright differences between copying and disseminating and just linking. Reproducing someone's writings without permission
On Oct 15, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Nichols, Joel wrote:Of course this item in the complaint must be groundless. The act ofadministering the Eucharist is considered -- even intentionally -- to be an"evangelistic" act by many theological groups (especially EasternOrthodoxy). That sacrament is an entry
A few people beating the drum of the illegitimacy of the judiciary have led to people to consider the judiciary illegitimate -- despite the few cases that are truly problematic politically or otherwise.A few people beating the drum of god being drummed out of school lead people to believe what the
For some Washington Post articles on this:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501471.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501492.html -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard
Sandy,First, I would need to interpret it to include things other than churches -- so rabbis, imams, and others can conduct services according to their own religious traditions for the most part.I don't think it extends to content like an imam saying "all good muslims will oppose the war in Iraq
How is adopting a core organizational document that states official policy not an "action"?On Oct 10, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Tim Kruse wrote: are bylaws protected as a form of free speech--that is in the absence of standing? With Universities around the country going after the discriminatory clauses
Brad,let me quote what you quoted:On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:2) The lawsuit "asks the Air Force to prohibit its members — including chaplains — from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow
gainst their will - I doubt if anyone on this list would disagree. However, it appears to be an attempt to compel silence from any person with whose religious views the plaintiff disagrees. Wow! This is quite a stretch!Steve Prescott From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Law Religion iss
Perhaps some of his sailor mates who were not evangelicals or born again or even Christian would want to attend the memorial service and in doing so would want it to be less sectarian and not include a conversion message. This is not the same as a regularly held service for a particular group.
I'm surprised that you've never heard any evangelical state the Holocaust was revenge for killing Jesus or refer to Jews as Christ killers. I have heard such from Catholics, traditional denominational Christians, and evangelical Christians. At one time it was official Catholic church doctrine,
What struck me as particularly interesting in this case is that the plaintiff's lawyer, according to the article, "would challenge the constitutionality of the U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Holy See on the grounds that it goes against the First Amendment's 'establishment clause' that bars any
I don't think it is binding as a technical matter, but practically speaking, if the 9th Circuit rules one way on the merits in one case, one would expect them to do so again. Since the S Ct did not rule on the merits, there is no binding US S Ct precedent and one looks for the best persuasive
What is the best available authority on what the 9th circuit might decide? A published decision on the merits. Even if it has been reversed on other grounds.While one could well get a different panel and the court refuse to hear it en banc and so get a different result, as a district court
I agree he should not have said he was bound by the Circuit. But, and here is where we disagree, I guess, I don't see the issue as a tabula rasa -- the 9th Circuit has spoken directly on this exact issue and I would respect that and not easily decide it as if it were a completely new issue. To
On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote:It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker
Surely a college or university can set standards for admission! Including the particular subjects that had to be studied and the scope of those subjects. Engineering schools do this. Med schools do this. Colleges and universities do this all the time! This cannot be a remarkable
On Aug 29, 2005, at 8:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reason for the question I propounded earlier, about rejecting a history course for credit because of its viewpoint preference for European exploration and its failure to be politically correct about the exploitive aspects of that grand
This is many, many steps removed from Rick's stated fear. Universities can have admissions standards and exercise discretion as to what courses meet its admissions requirements. UC is not excluding those students. It is merely saying that certain subjects are prerequisites to admission to the
Every so often the unreality of this list amazes me. Or to be perhaps more precise, or at least more personal, the claim that Christians are unwelcome and excluded from schools is utterly and totally ludicrous -- at least in my experience. Are there limits on the extent of imposing and endorsing
Rick, the solution to your posited need for radically individualized curricula is not vouchers but home schooling. Which you are doing.There were many things about all levels of schools that I don't like -- at every school. Including the way things are taught at different levels in any given
The 4th Circuit says that the recitation of the pledge of allegiance is not a religious exercise and so does no violate the establishment clause.Surely this would be correct, but for the "under God" language, although I'm sure a number of folk on this list and elsewhere would have some trouble
we don't think of the concept as permanently sequestered to the realm of the subjective and non-cogniti! ve.Take care,FrankOn Friday, August 19, 2005, at 09:32AM, Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Original Attached___To post, send message to Relig
I'm sure Sandy understands that and was making quite a different point, as he himself made clear in his follow up.On Aug 19, 2005, at 5:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is that what Sandy says just doesn't work in the real world of patients and physicians. Patients expect more from
we get into definitional things here in a big hurry. affirmative action as practiced by most businesses is widely supported -- seeking out qualified minorities and under represented groups.affirmative action as pilloried in caricature by the right -- hiring unqualified people for positions
spin spin spin -- on both sidesthe materials used by the teacher included many things that had not business being therethe school district restates its policy and has a case which adds some clarity to its bounds (the teacher at issue was out of bounds by a lot)and now we spin it on this listthe
I suppose "The Three Musketeers" is a bit over the top for this.I'm sure there's a good Henry VIII film too, though Becket serves this aspect well, it seems.On Aug 11, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote: Anyone have a good idea on this query from my librarian: Doug, are you aware of any
Mr. Garman,Some of us have read a large amount of history -- some of us were history majors in college. And some of us have read a great deal of writings on religion and law and the history of religion in the US and such since then. And a few on this list have even written thoughtful works on
fwiw here is the South African Constitutional provisions on freedom of religion and freedom of _expression_:15. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.(2) Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that
Sorry -- I hit "send" before I had finished pasting all of the sections I intended to -- here is the more complete version -- you can see the whole bill of rights athttp://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst02.html?rebookmark=1#31On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:25 AM, Steven Jamar
Brad,I'm not generally very persuaded by "slippery slope" arguments. We always need to draw lines between what is ok and what is not. I am one who thinks the international norms of hate speech should be followed here and that we can draw the line sufficiently toward the really bad end of the
example of intolerance (as traditionally understood). So, it seems to me, that the appeal to tolerance, once we have a clear understanding of its meaning, requires judgment and assumes certain non-negotiable moral truths. On 8/4/05 10:04 AM, "Steven Jamar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 4,
Who created god?Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of
It says free exercise. Not merely freedom of belief. Aspects of one's religious activities (exercise) may be limited, but the exercise of one's religion may not be entirely eliminated (unless one's religious beliefs are such that all exercise involves murder and mahem and other conduct
BTW, state sponsorship of religion need not necessarily result in religious strife. State religions are still common around the world -- UK, Egypt, Israel, Switzerland (or did they recently disestablish? I recall reading something about that) and others.And non-establishment is no guarantee of
I oppose teaching creationism, including intelligent design, in science courses. However, I think this topic should be an appropriate subject for an elective in HS, especially if taught from the historical or sociological or political perspective. I don't even get very exorcised about biology
On Aug 2, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: But maybe I'm naive to think that the hostility to any possibility of the supernatural in some realms of the scientific community can be overcome. Brad Pardee__There are many scientists who also believe
There is a difference between grants of power and limits on that power, isn't there? At least with respect to what Congress can address. Merely because something is within the Beckwithian concept of "federal concern" does not give Congress the power to act. Even when Congress has the power to
301 - 400 of 496 matches
Mail list logo
