Professor Newsom,
I appreciate your comments, and while I intended to let my last post be my
last post, I am not quite able to quit cold turkey. I think this really is
an interesting and important issue.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed to the definition of
bullying as being
Pardon me for jumping in. I'm brand new to this list, but as my
organization, Michigan Citizens for Science, is involved in questions of
science curricula I thought I'd jump in on this particular discussion.
It should probably be noted up front that I am not an attorney myself.
Mark Graber wrot
Original Message-
From: Gene Summerlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 3:32 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Mark,
I agree that context matters and for that reason I have d
sage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Context matters, and the nature of discussion matters. Certainly as a
matter of first impression, I do
30-5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
What about the following rule
l Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:24 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The idea that the govt is responsible for all that it does not
prohibit
must be t
0
402.434.8044 (FAX)
402.730.5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for rel
t: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 6:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Professor Newsome,
Would it be constitutional, in your opinion, for a school to pass and
enforce a rule which stated, "Students may not discuss any matters
r
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
5:24 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
The idea that the govt is
responsible for all that it does not prohibit must be treated with great care.
It has the potential
w.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
What about the following rule in a school. You
AIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Obviously overbroad. Students may clearly ask, "who is the present
Pope?" The issue is whether students may proselytize.
MAG
>&g
ovember 09, 2004 5:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Obviously overbroad. Students may clearly ask, "who is the present
Pope?" The issue is whether students may proselytize.
MAG
>>> "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
r 09, 2004 5:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Obviously overbroad. Students may clearly ask, "who is the present
Pope?" The issue is whether students may proselytize.
MAG
>>> "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:25 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Well that is the question. Some people believe that schools should not
be religious-free zones, and one of their arguments in support of that
position -- ap
MAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:25 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Well that is the question. Some people believe that schools should not
be religious-free zones
7;Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
The idea that the govt is responsible for
all that it does not prohibit must be treated with great care. It has the
potential of making govt responsible for all of life, and of eliminating the
sph
f Law
-Original Message-
From: marc stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
2:14 PM
To: 'Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
That the failure to
regulate might constitute state action-a
ely became moot as a result of the 1964 civil rights act.
Marc Stern
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
5:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
In a mess
You might.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
5:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:00:06
PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL
In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:00:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can't the stateregulate the use of its property? Can't one say that failure to do somight amount to state action?
Seems at least plausible that if you can make that work, you can find state action in the f
x27;Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
But note that the 14th amendment has a state action requirement...
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
For this argument to stand up, one has to conclude that any conflict
between the possible meaning of the First Amendment trumps possible
meanings of the Fourteenth Amendment. I thought the rule of
construction was that the latter in time trumps the fo
, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The
Fourteenth Amendment doesn't justify speech restrictions in the cause of
fighting racism any mor
requires.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Graber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
but schools are religious-free zones.
MAG
___
To post
lynchings. And, here, the Establishment Clause, which speaks (at
most) to the views that *the government* may express says nothing to
authorize the government to suppress *private persons'* religious
messages.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mai
s from expressing the view
> that some should convert to some religion, or should stop
> being religious. What's the justification for this sort of
> strikingly speech-restrictive position?
>
> Eugene
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [
from wearing religious symbols. But he seems to
> think that it prohibits students from expressing the view
> that some should convert to some religion, or should stop
> being religious. What's the justification for this sort of
> strikingly speech-restrictive position?
>
>
ncoln, NE 68508
402.434.8040
402.434.8044 (FAX)
402.730.5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
>
>
> The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I
> thought I made clear, that a great many Chri
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
>
>
> The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I
> thought I m
The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I thought I made
clear, that a great many Christians who thought nothing problematic
about converting Jews suddenly found speech offensive when they were the
converters. I suspect, by the way, that we agree that harrassment is
the wrong word.
I
I'm puzzled. Is Mark genuinely saying that it should be
considered harassment -- and thus presumably punishable under hostile
environment harassment law (unless Mark agrees with me that hostile
environment harassment law is unconstitutional to this extent) -- for
people to express the view
32 matches
Mail list logo
