Title: Re: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
I am not suggesting that religious conduct that has the potential to harm other people should never be subject to government regulation. My point is that it is no answer to say that the SF supervisors are denouncing
, April
07, 2006 6:47 AM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board
of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
Marci makes the mistake of conflating the
public square with government. Of course, given the debate over homosexuality
the church (and other religious
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
Gregory Wallace writes:
I am not suggesting that religious conduct that has the potential to
harm other people should never be subject to government regulation. My
point is that it is no answer to say that the SF supervisors are
denouncing a practice, not religious truth, when that practice is
of majoritarian religion. They are not the same
thing.
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:06 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
I¹m
How is the position at issue anything
other than discrimination?
From: Marc Stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:47
AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board
of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
Marci
Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Conversation: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
Gregory Wallace writes:
I am not suggesting that religious conduct that has
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:49:44 -0700
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Conversation: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic
CharitiesResolution
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic
CharitiesResolution
Gregory Wallace
Homosexuality was banned -- with serious enforcement -- by the
officially atheist (both de jure and de facto) Soviet government. GSS
surveys reveal that a substantial fraction of nonreligious people
(though a smaller fraction than of religious people) believes
homosexuality is wrong.
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Homosexuality was banned -- with serious enforcement -- by the
officially atheist (both de jure and de facto) Soviet government. GSS
surveys reveal that a substantial fraction of nonreligious people
(though a smaller fraction than of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:42 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic
CharitiesResolution
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Volokh
policy on its
merits. Whether it emanates from Rome or Berkeley or Timbuktu is really
beside the point.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:55
AM
Subject: Re: San Francicso Board of
Supervisor
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory Wallace
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic
CharitiesResolution
It seems to me that it¹s one thing for government to engage in actions
that
are inconsistent
LedermanSent: Thursday, April 06, 2006
5:28 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: Re: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic
CharitiesResolution
Marci: I agree that it would have been perfectly permissible, even
laudable, for San Francisco to strongly criticize
the elements that would be
impermissible if displayed alone or in different contexts.)
-Original Message-
From: Alan Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:59 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board of Supervisors
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Conversation: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
These questions are posed to no one in particular, so everybody is free
The only way to defend this analysis is to wish away most of the free
exercise jurisprudence, includingthe Smith decision. The Religion
Clause cases have, in fact, been based on the belief/conduct distinction.
(As have the free speech cases.) As I argue in God vs. the Gavel,
conduct is
17 matches
Mail list logo
