The First Congress adopted the wording of the First Amendment which prohibited
Congress from establishing religion by law. The states approved that wording
because they wanted to make sure the national government had no power in
respect to religion. By the very wording of the First Amendment, l
In a message dated 7/25/2005 2:12:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
First Congress separated religion and government by prohibiting Congress from
establishing religion by law.
But of course the First Congress did not do this. They proposed to
the States tha
E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 12:48 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/23/2005 10
Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 12:48 PMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Assaults on the England
language
In a message dated 7/23/2005 10:17:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL
I don't think "public spaces" gets us much further than "public squares."
Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw
In a message dated 7/23/2005 10:17:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
problem, in terms of conflict, it seems to me, arises, not from use of the
public square, but from the desire on the part of some to use government space
and property for the promotion of r
Because I have not seen a response, Webster's (Ninth) closest answer to "square"
is an open place or area, particularly in terms of a meeting place, like
where two or three streets meet or where the public meets on public property.
I suppose generally then we could say, the public square is a p
At 10:37 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote:
The quibble over language in this string: If any of you want to see use of
"Xn" in a sentence written by the "Father of the Constitution" you may
click on the following link:
I doubt that complainers would be appeased by the news that sometime,
somewher
Louie Crew decided that he was making a profound point by including "Are
you female or nonfemale" on a questionnaire. (I am male, but I am not at
all sure that I am "nonfemale". I have my quota of estrogen.)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.3
At 09:29 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote:
I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language,"
which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say
Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we
I stole it from Russell Baker, who anticipated that
-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 21,
2005 11:46 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Assaults on
the England language
In a message
dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PR
:46 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Assaults on the
England language
In a
message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A wording
which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such
thing as a Judeo-Chris
.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Duncan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005
10:04 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Assaults on the
England language
I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that
purpose matters when someone uses Xma
R ick
writes:
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I
don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child
in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to
the democratic branches.
Am I
correct in interpreting th
In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:14:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With respect, Rick,
no one is pushing 10 commandment displays to make a purely historic point
about the role of Christianity in America. Those efforts are
about the contemporary role of (Chris
In a message dated 7/22/05 12:00:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
concern that the Court has used the EC to cleanse the public square of an important part of America's culture. . . outside the scope of the public square
Please define "public square." Does it mean/include go
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:00
PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Assaults on the England
language
Mark
Stern speaks of "rumblings from congress about protecting
Mark Stern speaks of "rumblings from congress about protecting America's Christian heritage...by law." Is this a sign of a theocracy developing in Congress? Or merely its concern that the Court has used the EC to cleanse the public square of an important part of America's culture?
I am not sure exa
In a message dated 7/22/2005 10:20:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And,
what position do you have, Rick, on the desire of some Republicans to not
merely reverse Roe, but declare that abortion violates the 14th Amendment and
thus the many states which protect a
ults on the England
language
How would Rick's theory explain Republican
support for decisions striking down parts of the Brady Bill (Printz), the
Violence Against Women Act (Morrison), and law protecting kids from guns
in schools (Lopez). Seems like Republicans were using the courts
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to the democratic branches.
Would I, personally, support a constitutional rule recog
As always, I will
be happy to send the relevant paper to all interested parties. it is
forthcoming in an anthology from Oxford.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 10:34AM
>>>Mark: Do you have a particular case or series of cases in
mind? I'd appreciate a cite. Thanks, Richard Dougherty
Mark:
Do you have a particular case or series of cases in mind? I'd
appreciate a cite.
Thanks,
Richard Dougherty
Mark Graber wrote:
For
those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court
spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about
democr
How would Rick's theory explain Republican support for decisions
striking down parts of the Brady Bill (Printz), the Violence Against
Women Act (Morrison), and law protecting kids from guns in schools
(Lopez). Seems like Republicans were using the courts to defeat social
policies they did no
May I suggest that this entire
discussion could benefit from reading William Connolly on "essential contested
concepts." Alas, there is no neutral definition of "democracy," "judicial
activism," "moderate," etc. out there in large part because a good definition
depends on resolution of norm
Although "republicanism"
and its cognates have a venerable heritage predating the American experiment in
self-government, we must be mindful of the Founders use of this term, which in
part was to distance the halls of government from participation by ordinary
people. (Gary Nash recen
"Scarberry, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion an
For those interested, until 1939, not
one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a
democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in
concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in
1939.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/0
In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Put
another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim
asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view
thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to
To follow up on a point that I think Doug made earlier about the
connotation of "democratic":
Think about the uses of the words "democratic" and "republican" other than
to refer to American political parties. We do not say that we are trying to
encourage the development of republican governments
ligion issues for Law Academics"
CC: Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Assaults on the England language
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:18:50 +
Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it
(although offense certainly is taken). Indeed
In a message dated 7/21/2005 2:39:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This has
nothing to do with religion law and has only to do with the desire to strike a
pose. Let's move on to something that actually
matters.
Well, go read my posts. I did note that this was o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it (although offense certainly is taken). Indeed, Republic Party folks aren't even addressing their Democratic counterparts when they use the adjective: They're addressing the public, and they c
In a message dated 7/21/2005 2:20:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First,
McCarthy and his modern-day counterparts wish to deny Democrats the *positive*
connotations that are associated with the word
"democratic."
Do you equate anyone that uses the term "Democra
Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it
(although offense certainly is taken). Indeed, Republic Party folks aren't
even addressing their Democratic counterparts when they use the adjective:
They're addressing the public, and they couldn't care less how we Democr
Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Stuart BUCKSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:23 PMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Assaults on the England
languageI.e., is it the case that people take offense at "Democrat
Party" for absolutel
Best,
Stuart Buck
From: Ann Althouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:29:15 -0500
I like the title of this thread "Assau
gion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Assaults on the
England language
The correct adjective is "female," but people avoid it because they
feel it has the wrong connotation. That's really the same thing you're seeing
with those who avoid the adjective "Democratic" w
Judeo-Christian does not (usually) refer to a person. It refers to a
common tradition. It is undeniable that they have much of their
tradition and morality in common. There is a REALLY thick book of
ancient writings that both ascribe to as history and as moral teaching
(though Christians would s
Another quibble. Whatever Xn means, James Madison used it.
I have just been informed the link uchicago.edu does not work. Sorry. Just
search "Detached Memoranda" and many sources are available.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
americasrealreligion.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gene Garman wrote:
A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian."
There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and
Christians are not Jews.
I think you are misconstruing the term. The term
"Judeo-Christian", at least as I have seen it used, generally
refers
In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There
is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians
are not Jews.
This, of course, is a doctrinal fo
The correct adjective is "female," but people avoid it because they feel it has the wrong connotation. That's really the same thing you're seeing with those who avoid the adjective "Democratic" when referring to the party. And I'm on the side of calling people and groups what they want to be called
The quibble over language in this string: If any of you want to see use of
"Xn" in a sentence written by the "Father of the Constitution" you may click
on the following link:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI . Regardless, every
one of you should read James Madison's enti
In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:25:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
claim of the people making the gramatical argument depends on thefact that
with Democrat and Democratic, the language has clearlydifferentiated the
noun from the adjective.
Which is anot
AIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:29 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language
I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language,"
which suggests the grammatical argument for
I agree entirely with Mark Graber; we have had fruitful discussions in the past
about the use of terms such as "Judeo-Christian" and "totalitarian," and I
think Rick's addition of terms such as fundamentalist and homophobic, as well
as anti-choice or
anti-abortion might be thrown in the mix.
Ric
The grammatical argument is
only one factor for saying the "Democratic Party" instead of "Democrat
Party." What's dispositive, in my view, is that "Democratic Party"
is the chosen name of a particular group of fellow citizens. And,
again in my view, respect for those citizens should
I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language,"
which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say
Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we
say "women lawyers"? "Women" isn't an adjective.
Ann
On Jul 21, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Mark
I suppose the best solution is that we all use the words we believe best
convey our meanings, keeping in mind the virtues of civility on this
list. Others may challenge our usages, and we then deciding whether to
accept amendments.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/05 10:03 AM >>>
I think, as the
In a message dated 7/21/05 10:04:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words?
No, don't often use GREEK letter to shorten English words but do use a lot of abbreviations and don't spend at time at all, until this thread, analyzing
I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you abbreviate lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use the X because you t
I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes used
an X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was told, is
why X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be acceptable as
well.
Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the
In a message dated 7/20/05 11:10:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like "Xtians"?
"X" is, as I am sure you know, the Greek for Christ (if memory serves me right). Thus, "Xtian" is an abbreviation for Christian. Many years ago I used it in religion courses I took in college.
54 matches
Mail list logo
