Re: FW: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims
Question: How many Danes does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: I can't answer that question; it would be a crime. [Name withheld to prevent extradition] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Oklahoma anti-Sharia measure enjoined
This news report: http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13581680 says a state judge today issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from certifying the results of the no Sharia law ballot measure. The report has a link to the decision. I understand the ACLU represented the plaintiffs. Art Spitzer ACLU ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Oklahoma anti-Sharia measure enjoined
Sorry, now that I've clicked through on the link I see it was a federal court, not a state court. Sorry. In a message dated 11/29/10 2:58:20 PM, artspit...@aol.com writes: This news report: http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13581680 says a state judge today issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from certifying the results of the no Sharia law ballot measure. The report has a link to the decision. I understand the ACLU represented the plaintiffs. Art Spitzer ACLU ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: TRO against Oklahoma no use of Sharia Law
But isn't the question under the state RFRA what the individual plaintiff sincerely believes, not what sharia (or the talmud, or the Bible, or the Pope) says? Art Spitzer In a message dated 11/10/10 3:55:31 PM, ste...@ajc.org writes: Oklahoma has enacted a state RFRA. The new constitutional provision would seem to forbid Muslims –and Muslims only- from invoking that law in a case involving sharia law, i.e., any claim of religious liberty advanced by a Muslim. (it would also bar, I assume, any claim in the Oklahoma courts by a Muslim inmate under RLUIPA).Why is not the rendering of Muslims outlaws with regard to religious liberty sufficient harm to create standing? ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: N.J. public transit employee fired for blasphemy
Sandy, I agree. I should have made my point more clearly, which is that many people (like the poster to whom I was responding) seem ready to abandon freedom of speech, and other civil liberties, at the thought of even one death, while even thousands of deaths don't cause them to consider prohibiting recreational drinking, or 70-mph speed limits, or a host of other social behaviors that sometimes cause deaths. Putting the Constitution entirely aside, doesn't free speech have as much social value as a roadside tavern? Perhaps we should just think of it as a risky social behavior -- then we could more easily tolerate the deaths that it causes from time to time. ;-) Art Spitzer In a message dated 9/16/10 3:49:55 PM, slevin...@law.utexas.edu writes: I'll bite: the argument against prohibition is prudential, ie, the social costs are too high (as with drugs and, argably, guns), not because there is a constititional right to drink or, even after Heller, possess a habdgun outside one's home. Sandy ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Augusta State University student sues school over requirement that she un...
In a message dated 7/29/10 10:40:22 AM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: ... a psychological counselor cannot be a competent counselor if they reject the science of medicine on homosexuality, which appears to be what is happening here. Until 1973, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder. And my impression is that political pressure had as much to do with that change as scientific evidence, which was just beginning to come out :-) at that time. Presumably some on this list (had they been professors in 1972) would have said that a person who was lesbian or gay and did not believe that he or she was suffering from a mental disorder should not be licensed as a therapist, because he or she rejected the science of medicine on homosexuality. I hope we would all agree, in hindsight, that that would have been unfortunate and unnecessary. Some of today's scientific truths will be tomorrow's benighted ignorance. I'm not suggesting any particular ones; I don't have a crystal ball. Of course we can't operate today by tomorrow's knowledge, but awareness that there surely will be different knowledge tomorrow suggests that tolerance of differences is not a bad choice for today. Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Factual Clarification re CLS
Apparently the Scientologists tried twice; two reported cases seem to fit Marc's description: Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1993) Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994) The cases didn't arise on a college campus. Art Spitzer In a message dated 5/10/10 4:50:53 PM, mst...@ajcongress.org writes: It is not true that it never happens. I think it was scientology in the late 70's or early 80's Scientology tried to take over an anti-cult group,invokng the Unruh Act. The California courts saw through the effort. Marc ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Factual Clarification re CLS
Ira Lupu writes: In a law school, there is certainly a rational basis for coming down on the side of non-exclusivity as a condition of access to the forum and its privileges -- among other things, all-comers increases the likelihood of dynamic exchange of views, something a law school may legitimately value. CLS is not a church, and neither is Outlaw, and yet (if Hastings prevails) both will wind up with (only) the members sympathetic to their respective purposes. But isn't that purpose fully served by requiring that campus groups allow all comers to attend meetings and participate in discussions? Does voting membership or eligibility for leadership positions further serve that purpose? And campus groups are not only discussion groups. Quite often they are action groups as well. For example, a CLS group and an Outlaw group at GWU may both want to present testimony at a DC Council hearing on a same-sex marriage bill. Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Factual Clarification re CLS
In a message dated 5/10/10 6:01:48 PM, aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu writes: why wouldn’t those associational freedom rights also extend to deciding to who may attend meetings and participate in discussions? I think the associational claim might well extend to those activities. But mightn't the state educational institution be found to have an anti-discrimination interest that is compelling as applied to those activities, but that is not compelling as applied to voting and leadership? Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: premarital sex is wrong?
Let's just add it to the Pledge of Allegiance. Then we'll know how to deal with it. One Nation, where premarital sex is OK under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. :-) Art Spitzer In a message dated 2/23/10 7:25:29 PM, mst...@ajcongress.org writes: Here is a link to a fight in england over a bill requiring sex ed in all schools including religious ones. Under the bill as reported here,schools could not teach premarital sex was wrong What result if passed here in us? Marc stern http://www.google.com/url?sa=X; q=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/23/sexually-confused-sex-education-faith-schoolsct=ga; cd=yVg0Ek2Zmiwusg=AFQjCNFc-vZ5I1oIJnw3T__bLEs-xZYl7w ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Elane Photography
In a message dated 12/17/09 3:41:12 PM, vol...@law.ucla.edu writes: here Elaine Huguenin stressed that her objection was to the content of the ceremony that she is being compelled to photograph, and not just to the identity of the payer. In my experience, most people (including most lawyers) on the left side of the playing field simply cannot, or will not, acknowledge the possibility that there is a difference between these two objections, or at least that the difference should be taken seriously. I think the reason is that acknowledging the difference is felt as opening the door wide for letting bad people get away with invidious discrimination just by mouthing a non-bigoted reason for discriminating. If pressed, their usual response is: many Southerners said (or would have been happy to say) that race mixing was contrary to God's word; if this had been accepted as an excuse for race discrimination the civil rights laws would have come to naught. Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
[I sent this last night but it doesn't seem to have reached the list so I'm trying again, slightly edited.] The courts have told us that a statute that coincides with a religious belief, and that may have been enacted by legislators whose votes were influenced by their personal religious beliefs, is not thereby an establishment of religion. E.g., Harris v. McRae (no tax funding for abortions). Why shouldn't the same principle apply here? If a person's openly held beliefs or public statements are actually antithetical to the requirements of a particular job, then that person should not have to be hired or retained in that job. Whether the beliefs or statements at issue arise from the person's religion or from some other source should be irrelevant. If I won't defend someone's legal right to utter blasphemy, then the ACLU could reasonably refuse to hire me as a First Amendment litigator, regardless of whether my refusal to do so arises from my religious belief that blasphemy (and the defense of blasphemy) is a sin, or from my purely secular belief that the world would be a better place if people were legally prohibited from casting aspersions on other people's religious beliefs. I therefore don't see how denying a job to a person who holds beliefs that are antithetical to the requirements of the job constitutes a religious test. I think the argument that this is a religious test assumes that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification” includes the meaning “no secular test shall ever be required as a qualification if it would have a disparate impact on people of some religion,” which seems dubious to me. Is it a “religious test” to require that a Public Health Service nurse be willing and able to give vaccinations, which (I'm assuming for the sake of making the point) means that a Christian Scientist can't get that job? Whether a person's beliefs are actually antithetical to the requirements of a particular job depends a lot on the job. I don't care if an NIH file clerk believes that the germ theory of disease is a false invention of Satan, intended to mislead people into vainly trying to cure illness with medicine rather than with prayer -- as long as that belief doesn't cause him to misfile charts. But I think such a belief should disqualify a person from being the head of NIH, because such a belief is very likely to skew decisions that are within the power of that job. (And this remains true even though it's possible that in 200 years the germ theory will have been displaced by a more sophisticated understanding of illness. We can't live 200 years in the future.) Of course, it's the government's option whether to assert or to disregard such a disqualification. There's nothing unlawful about appointing a person who doesn't believe in germs to be the head of NIH, any more than it's unlawful to appoint a person who doesn't believe in regulating Wall Street to be the head of the SEC, or unlawful to appoint a person who believes that “when the President does it, it's not against the law” to be the Attorney General. Art Spitzer (speaking personally; I don't think the ACLU has expressed any view about the appointment of Dr. Collins) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic 'Mass Cards'
In addition to what Doug Laycock said, the statute would also be unconstitutional here because it presumes guilt and puts the burden on the accused to prove his or her innocence. Here, the government always has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts that show a crime has been committed by the accused. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).(Is it actually the case that in Ireland a person can be convicted of a crime simply by being accused and standing silent, with no facts put into evidence by the prosecutor?) In a message dated 8/4/09 8:31:37 PM, maireadenri...@gmail.com writes: In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been committed. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I'm certainly with you on tush-patting and branch-whipping. And on not taking an 11-year old who stops walking, speaking and eating to the hospital. I suspect (almost?) everyone on the list is. It's in-between that raises issues. I have no doubt that child abuse has a very high cost to society. I'm also confident that any effort to wipe out child abuse would also have a very high cost to society. Just look at the war on drugs. Who would ever have thought that we'd have SWAT teams breaking into innocent people's homes looking for marijuana, until we did? The costs of law enforcement need to be kept in mind, along with the costs of child abuse. There are no perfect solutions. Art In a message dated 8/3/09 10:48:33 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: Art- many studies now document the extreme disabilities visited upon abused children. The cost to society is very high. Is a pat on the tush abuse? No. Is a whipping with a tree branch? Probably The term spanking is not terribly helpful ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=115amp; bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: still waiting for concrete examples
I don't think I understand the question, perhaps because I'm not familiar with the CLUB case. A violation of RFRA doesn't depend on any discrimination; it's enough that the government declines to accommodate a religious exercise, that its failure to do so imposes a substantial burden on the plaintiff's exercise of religion, and that the government could accommodate the religious exercise without significantly undercutting a compelling interest. Right? So when the Fire Department failed to show that half a dozen bearded men couldn't safely be accommodated, it lost. (My own view is that an unlimited number of bearded men could be accommodated, but the court didn't have to find that.) Had the Fire Department continued to allow scores of firefighters to wear beards for medical reasons (which it had allowed at from at least the 1970s until mid-2005), the case would have been over much sooner. But the Department's lawyer realized that, and the (white) Chief decided that he'd rather force all those (black) firefighters with pseudofolliculitis barbae to shave than allow a small number of firefighter to wear religious beards. It didn't make much sense to me. Art In a message dated 6/22/09 9:29:58 AM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: Thanks, Art. Interesting case. In CLUB v City of Chicago, the City altered its land use scheme to eliminate the discriminatory treatment and the City eventually won under RLUIPA. Why did the Fire Department's elimination of the beard policy not lead to a similar result under RFRA? Marci In a message dated 6/21/2009 10:36:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, artspit...@aol.com writes: I don't know whether you consider forcing a person to choose between shaving his religiously-mandated beard and losing his job to be a very real threat to religious freedom, but my clients did, and we just won such a case in the DC Circuit under RFRA that we would have lost without it. The appeal, Potter v. District of Columbia, 558 F.3d 542 (DC Cir 2009), turned solely on civil procedure, but the district court's decision, 2007 WL 2892685 (DDC 2007), was on the merits -- that the District of Columbia had not carried its RFRA burden of showing that a no facial hair rule for firefighters and EMTs was required for safety (safety being a concededly compelling interest). The Fire Deoartment avoided losing on constitutional grounds, a la FOP v. City of Newark, by eliminating, in the middle of the case, its long-existing exemption for men who had a medical need to avoid shaving. Art Spitzer ACLU ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=JuneExcfooterNO62) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: still waiting for concrete examples
Marci- I must be slow today. 1. Why does what I said explain the district court's frustration with what it was being asked to do? If you're suggesting that the judge was pissed at my clients (or at their lawyer) for having somehow caused the Fire Department to make lots of other firefighters shave, I saw no evidence of any such thing. I think he was oblivious to it. I would have wished he were more attentive to it -- it would have made him hostile to the Department. Or was your reasoning something else entirely? 2. And I still don't understand why you think requiring all firefighters to be clean-shaven would defeat the RFRA claim. Can you help me figure that out? Art Spitzer In a message dated 6/22/09 1:00:27 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: Thanks. That explains the district court's frustration with what it was being asked to do. Marci In a message dated 6/22/2009 12:46:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, artspit...@aol.com writes: I don't think I understand the question, perhaps because I'm not familiar with the CLUB case. A violation of RFRA doesn't depend on any discrimination; it's enough that the government declines to accommodate a religious exercise, that its failure to do so imposes a substantial burden on the plaintiff's exercise of religion, and that the government could accommodate the religious exercise without significantly undercutting a compelling interest. Right? So when the Fire Department failed to show that half a dozen bearded men couldn't safely be accommodated, it lost. (My own view is that an unlimited number of bearded men could be accommodated, but the court didn't have to find that.) Had the Fire Department continued to allow scores of firefighters to wear beards for medical reasons (which it had allowed at from at least the 1970s until mid-2005), the case would have been over much sooner. But the Department's lawyer realized that, and the (white) Chief decided that he'd rather force all those (black) firefighters with pseudofolliculitis barbae to shave than allow a small number of firefighter to wear religious beards. It didn't make much sense to me. Art ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=JuneExcfooterNO62) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: still waiting for concrete examples
Chris Lund writes: One question. If the Department eliminated the medical exception to make the law generally applicable and thus defeat the Free Exercise claim - then doesn't it then run afoul of the neutrality requirement? I mean, in such a case, the change was made because of and not merely in spite of its burden on religious practice. Now it may be hard to show that the Department eliminated the medical exception deliberately to defeat the Free Exercise claim, but I imagine the temporal link between the two would be really good evidence of intent. It would have been very hard to prove the Department's bad motivation. The Fire Department would have argued that our case made it reexamine the facial hair issue, and it concluded that safety required everyone to be clean-shaven. (That's essentially what it did say.) And I'm not so sure that issuing a religion-neutral regulation because your lawyer advises you that if you continue to make medical exceptions you'll also have to make religious exceptions makes the regulation non-neutral. It's not as if there was no support for the Department's safety argument. There was support. Art Spitzer ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp; hmpgID=62amp;bcd=JuneExcfooterNO62) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: A Bible study group and a book club are not treated the same
On a more practical note, does anyone know who represented the parties in this Texas case, and whether one of them (or ideally, both together) might petition the court to replace these problematic seven words with an innocuous comparison that makes the same point, e.g., Just as a student who is absent from school to observe a religious holiday and a student who is absent from school to attend a baseball game are not treated the same, neither are a halfway house operated for religious purposes and one that is not. ? Art Spitzer ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323000x1201367220/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp; hmpgID=62amp;bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: still waiting for concrete examples
In a message dated 6/21/09 10:12:48 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: I'm still waiting for concrete examples of very real threats to religious freedom without rfras. All examples welcome. Marci- I don't know whether you consider forcing a person to choose between shaving his religiously-mandated beard and losing his job to be a very real threat to religious freedom, but my clients did, and we just won such a case in the DC Circuit under RFRA that we would have lost without it. The appeal, Potter v. District of Columbia, 558 F.3d 542 (DC Cir 2009), turned solely on civil procedure, but the district court's decision, 2007 WL 2892685 (DDC 2007), was on the merits -- that the District of Columbia had not carried its RFRA burden of showing that a no facial hair rule for firefighters and EMTs was required for safety (safety being a concededly compelling interest). The Fire Deoartment avoided losing on constitutional grounds, a la FOP v. City of Newark, by eliminating, in the middle of the case, its long-existing exemption for men who had a medical need to avoid shaving. Art Spitzer ACLU ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323000x1201367220/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp; hmpgID=62amp;bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Iqbal and the Free Exercise Clause
When would a law that's not neutral or not generally applicable not also be intentionally discriminatory? Can a legislature negligently or unknowingly enact a law that's not neutral or not generally applicable? Art Spitzer ** Dinner Made Easy Newsletter - Simple Meal Ideas for Your Family. Sign Up Now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221991367x1201443283/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225819%3B37 274678%3Bs%3Fhttp:%2F%2Frecipes.dinnermadeeasy.com%2F%3FESRC%3D622) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Bowman v. U.S.
In a message dated 5/4/09 7:14:29 PM, nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com writes: no one seems to like the answer that a scholarship exclusion for students majoring in gender studies from a feminist perspective does not even trigger serious scrutiny under the Free Sp Cl. I'm not sure where I come out on this, but does your position mean that if Big State U. sets up a Department of Peace Studies it also has to set up a Department of War Studies? If an alumnus donates money to create a chair for the study of democratic institutions, the university can't accept those funds unless it also finds funds for a chair for the study of totalitarian institutions? If there's a scholarship for a student majoring in dispute resolution, there must also be a scholarship for a student majoring in dispute fomentation?Why are these examples of private speech rather than of government subsidy for the speech (and only the speech) it wishes to promote? Art Spitzer (employed by but not speaking for the ACLU) ** 2009 3 Free CREDIT SCORES: See Your 3 Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus FREE! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221797372x1201397989/aol?redir=https:%2F %2Fwww.freescore.com%2FOffers%2FStart%2FFreeCreditReportAndScore.aspx%3FID%3 D91831F371F138345B53A153F49D4D872%26siteid%3De927580bf7) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Bowman v. U.S.
Thanks for the compliment, Rick. I can see how funding a Department of X, or a Chair of X Studies, could be characterized as funding the speech of one or more professors about X. But it's hard for me to see how funding a scholarship for students who study X amounts to funding the student's speech about X, or about anything. The students aren't being paid to speak (unless, I suppose, their course of study is drama or rhetoric). Why is receiving a scholarship a form of private speech? Is receiving a tax refund a form of speech? Art In a message dated 5/4/09 11:41:55 PM, nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com writes: Art Spitzer asks some great questions: I'm not sure where I come out on this, but does your position mean that if Big State U. sets up a Department of Peace Studies it also has to set up a Department of War Studies? If an alumnus donates money to create a chair for the study of democratic institutions, the university can't accept those funds unless it also finds funds for a chair for the study of totalitarian institutions? If there's a scholarship for a student majoring in dispute resolution, there must also be a scholarship for a student majoring in dispute fomentation? Why are these examples of private speech rather than of government subsidy for the speech (and only the speech) it wishes to promote? I think that the govt can say whatever it wants to say when it is the speaker. Thus, the University of Nebraska can set up a Dept of Peace if that is what it wishes to do. Its curriculum is its own speech, so it can adopt a particular viewpoint if that is what it wishes to do. Moreover, the govt could probably fund a scholarship only for certain subjects (as opposed to certain viewpoints)--such as a scholarship for nursing majors or education majors. This would probably best be considered a non-public forum in which content restrictions are permitted, but viewpoint restrictions are prohibited. The problem in Davey was that Washington created a general scholarship covering all majors including theology majors and excluded only one viewpoint--devotional theology majors (those majoring in theology from a believing perspective as opposed to an agnostic perspective). This amounts to viewpoint discrimination in a forum for private educative speech--this is not a Rust govt speech case, it is more like a Rosenberger case in which govt is seeking to facilitate the private speech of citizens who have qualified for a generally available scholarship on the basis of objective characteristics (GPA and family income). Thus, viewpoint discrimination is forbidden. It is the clear viewpoint discrimination that make the hypos I pose seem so clearly unconstitutional--a scholarship for all students except those who major in gender studies from a feminist perspective, or except those who major in economics from a socialist perspective. Would anyone on the list uphold such viewpoint restrictions on scholarships? Rehnquist's unreasoned Fr Sp dictum in Davey, a Fr Ex case, should not preclude the issue from being considered in a future case in which the Fr Sp issue is part of the question presented. The test suites I propose make Rehnquist's non-analysis in Davey cry out for full and fair reconsideration. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ** 2009 3 Free CREDIT SCORES: See Your 3 Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus FREE! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221797372x1201397989/aol?redir=https:%2F%2Fwww.freescore.com%2FOffers%2FStart%2FFreeCreditRepor tAndScore.aspx%3FID%3D91831F371F138345B53A153F49D4D872%26siteid%3De927580bf7 ) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Government Religious Displays and Substantive Neutrality
In a message dated 3/31/09 6:02:12 PM, layco...@umich.edu writes: Here's one more way to think about it: ... the rule that government must be religiously neutral [is] a special protection for religion Government can not try either to coerce you or persuade you to change your views about religion. That ... is the greatest level of possible protection. Yes, but it's an entirely hypothetical (and thus unimportant) protection to those who are comfortably in the majority, and who therefore can, without perceived risk to their own views, seek to get the government to coerce or persuade others to change their views. Isn't that why so many local government officials would react to Doug's excellent point with blank stares? It just doesn't relate to their world. Art Spitzer ACLU ** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Can religious and secular courts exist in the same nation?
In a message dated 11/19/08 2:38:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... This is not a problem if both parties agree, after the dispute has arisen, to go to the religious court, and if both parties abide by the judgment. That is just a mechanism for voluntary dispute resolution; the government is not involved. But even in this situation, if the religious court grants a divorce that the state recognizes, we have gone beyond voluntary dispute resolution. Why is it more problematic for the state to recognize a divorce decreed by a religious authority than it is for the state to recognize a marriage decreed by a religious authority? (Not a rhetorical question.) ** One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom0001) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Virginia ban on state troopers mentioningJesus Christ in public prayers
I didn't find Eric's post all that persuasive. I assume it's true that police officers and firefighters are more likely than the general population to encounter upsetting situations, but when the emergency ends they are in their home communities and free to seek spiritual help from their usual civilian sources. And if a police department or fire department thinks its members need on-the-job crisis counselling, they are certainly free to hire licensed psychologists or social workers, or to seek volunteers from such professions -- people who might actually be trained to provide the kind of help that's needed, and who would be equally available to all members. (I don't mean that a Christian minister wouldn't be happy to minister to a non-Christian, but that a non-Christian might not want such ministration.) Art Spitzer In a message dated 9/29/08 8:23:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Police officers and firefighters are more likely than the general population to encounter exigent circumstances in which they would like/need spiritual guidance, such as involvement in a mass tragedy (train crash, 9/11 response). In such situations, they quite likely will not have access to their clergy when they need it. Moreover, their lack of access to their clergy is a direct effect of their providing a unique public service and sacrifice to the public. ** Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall0001) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Kid misrecites the Pledge of Allegiance - can he be graded down for that?
Write under law, then drip a drop of chocolate ice cream on that spot so it smudges and can't be read. ** It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv000547) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religious exemptions and sex with 16-year-old
In a message dated 8/6/08 9:11:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would assume that rfra does not undermine neutral, generally applicable felonies. Didn't it do precisely that in the O Centro case? ** Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000517 ) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religious exemptions and sex with 16-year-old
In a message dated 8/6/08 9:44:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not believe there is a precedent that is analogous involving underage sex and/or polygamy. I assume there's not a case on point, but what does that matter when there's a statute on point? ** Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000517 ) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Conflicts between religious exefcise and gay rights and cudgels
Marty Lederman writes: I would respectfully dissent from [the] suggestion that ... gays and lesbians really suffer much harm by being denied services or jobs or housing on the basis of their sexual orientation because they could get such services -- often at a higher quality -- just fine from lots of other providers. ... With all respect, I think this sort of standard libertarian skepticism about the need for antidiscrimination laws significantly trivializes very serious harms. - I don't doubt that some people suffer very serious harms from being denied goods and services based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., even if they could easily obtain the same goods and services elsewhere. - Nor, however, do I doubt that some people suffer very serious harms from being forced to serve certain other people in certain ways, when providing such service contravenes their sincerely-held religious or moral beliefs. - And it seems to me that the harms in these two cases are essentially identical: some combination of emotional distress and moral outrage. - So is there any reason (other than where our personal sympathies happen to lie) to assume that the harm in case #1 is categorically greater than the harm in case #2, or that the harm in case #2 is categorically greater than the harm in case #1? - Given that equal protection and religious freedom are both constitutional values, is there any reason why the legal system should categorically favor the person suffering harm in case #1 over the person suffering harm in case #2, or the person suffering harm in case #2 over the person suffering harm in case #1? Art Spitzer ** Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000517 ) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666
I'm not even sure the necessary change would require an Act of Congress. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a statute's codification in the US Code is generally a part of the bill enacted by Congress. If you look at the Statutes at Large, you'll see the future codification in the margin, not in the text. I think codification is just an administrative function. And I assume it would be sufficient for the father here if 42 USC § 666 were changed to 42 USC § 665a, so it wouldn't even have to be moved to a different position in the books. Art Spitzer ACLU Washington DC In a message dated 8/1/08 1:19:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here, by comparison, the change is high-level (it requires a Congressional act) but otherwise relatively cheap: Copy 42 USC 666 to 42 USC 777. ** Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000517 ) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666
Yes, I think what Prof. Laycock says is also true. And it's probably true that if congressional action were needed, a change from 666 to 665a could be included in a long list of technical corrections attached to some omnibus bill, and no Member would even notice it. But I'm not sure a court could order Congress to do that, while a court could (at least more likely could) order the Office of the Law Revision Counsel to make such a change. But I suppose I'm straying from religion and the law. Art Spitzer In a message dated 8/1/08 3:35:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Except that sometimes, I think the drafters do it right in the bill. If they are amending existing legislation that has already been numbered, and they are inserting new sections, I think that the bill sometimes numbers those sections. So Section 2 of the bill may amend section 665 of the existing Act and add a new section 666. I'm pretty sure I've seen examples of this, although I can't swear to it. If the bill number is created by an Act of Congress, then I suppose it takes another Act of Congress to change it. Which is why you occasionally see bills to correct typos. ** Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000517 ) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Amish foster care
In a message dated 7/1/08 7:51:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Art-- Well, I don't think the story as told was truly agnostic. The views of the boy were not included. ... I'll plead guilty to that; the story came from the father. But religious or secular, the views of teenagers do not generally prevail over the views of their parents, absent actual abuse or neglect. If I had a 16-year-old son, I could send him to boarding school or public school, or make him move with the family to (who can I insult here?) Los Angeles, regardless of his views about the matter. Teenagers and their parents are not equal parties in family decisionmaking, and I don't think I know anyone (other than teenagers, I suppose) who thinks they should be. Art ** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Amish foster care
I'd be curious to know whether folks think there were any legal wrongs committed in the following story, which comes to me as true, and whether folks have ideas about what Dad can or should do: A 16 year old boy, one of 12 children in an Amish family, got into an argument with his father (about clothing) and ran away. Dad was worried and called the police, who located the boy and asked dad to take him back.But dad said “when he is ready to follow the rules. Whereupon the state child welfare agency filed a dependent neglect petition and placed the boy in foster care. That's not what dad wanted to happen, but he didn’t understand the system. Now he has hired lawyer to get it undone and get the boy returned. But in the month that the boy has been in foster care, he has been taken swimming, to the arcade, played video games, watched movies, and had his ear pierced, among other non-Amish things. The state child welfare agency has even brought the boy back to his home to tell his siblings about life on the outside. Dad wants the boy to come home, but is concerned about how he has been changed by his exposure to the modern world, and how that will affect the rest of the family if he returns. Any ideas, other than Don't argue with your teenager? Does a child welfare agency have any obligation to try to place a child in foster care in a home that reflects his family's non-mainstream but lawful values, or to tell foster parents to honor those values? Does it make a difference whether those values are religious or secular values? Does the age of the child (16) make a difference? Thanks, Art Spitzer Arthur B. Spitzer Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area 1400 20th Street, N.W., Suite 119 Washington, D.C. 20036 T. 202-457-0800 F. 202-452-1868 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aclu-nca.org ** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Amish foster care
Marci- I was trying not to assume. Except for the part about bringing the boy back to tell his siblings about life on the outside, which seems gratuitously subversive of the Amish family, I'm agnostic and eager to hear what people think. (Eugene's comments are, as always, very helpful.) Art In a message dated 7/1/08 5:42:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Art. - why do you assume this was a bad result? ** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Victory for prayer in Jesus name?
Chaplain Klingenschmitt was well advised to put a question mark in his subject line. Last week's CA5 decision does not uphold the constitutionality of the school board's practice. Rather, the case (DOE v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, No. 05-30294 (July 25)) was dismissed because the plaintiffs had neglected to put in the record any evidence that they had attended a school board meeting and had been exposed to the challenged prayers; therefore they had not demonstrated that they had standing to sue. Any person who has attended a school board meeting and has been exposed to the challenged prayers remains free to file a new lawsuit, where the constitutionality of the practice will be an open question. Indeed, the court stated it is not hard to conceive that a more concrete controversy may arise in the future. Whether this decision is worthy of celebration and wide-spread publicity I leave to the good chaplain 's judgment. Art Spitzer ACLU of the National Capital Area Washington DC In a message dated 7/30/07 5:22:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ACLU just lost their case against prayer in Jesus name by Louisiana school board. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070727/28638_Judges_Overturn_Ban_on_School_Board_Prayer.htm This victory by ADF is worthy of celebration and wide-spread publicity. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: EC Compelling Interest
It seems to me that if a state says, we'll give grants to any social service agency that operates a 24/7 pregnancy prevention hotline, and denomination X says we'd like a grant, but our faith forbids us from operating anything on the sabbath, and the state says too bad, then, that's not what the Constitution forbids as denominational discrimination. Some denominations just can't qualify for the terms of the grant. I don't know the Colorado Christian University case but it sounds like the same sort of thing. Art Spitzer In a message dated 7/23/07 10:54:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, Doug, then how do you decide the Colorado Christian University case in which the state has engaged in denominational discrimination against pervasively sectarian schools, but claims to have a state anti-establishment compelling interest (in not funding sectarian schools) that trumps the federal EC violation? Is this a case in which the state compelling interest in not funding certain religious colleges is merely a disagreement with the clearest command of the federal EC prohibiting denominational discrimination? ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: EC Compelling Interest
How about hiring chaplains for the armed forces? In a message dated 7/22/07 5:34:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The tough question is to come up with a concrete example of where some compelling interest would indeed be in play. Rick, what examples did you have in mind? ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
In a message dated 3/5/07 3:38:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm confused by this ruling. The Supreme Court's order only instructs the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal as moot. (Emphasis added.)The appeal was apparently only from the district court’s denial of petitioner’s (plaintiff's) motion for a preliminary injunction. The request for an injunction is moot because the plaintiff graduated. But Prof. Friedman's blog says that the compliant also sought damages; that claim could not be rendered moot by the plaintiff's graduation and presumably remains pending in the district court, where it will still require a decision on the merits, unless the case settles. What confuses me, though, is that the Supreme Court's order states that The district court, however, has now entered final judgment dismissing petitioner’ s claims for injunctive relief as moot. Ordinarily, a district court could not enter a final judgment unless it dispopsed of all claims against all parties. I wonder if the district court here entered a partial final judgment under the special procedure of Rule 54(b), or if someone (the district judge, the Supreme Court, Prof. Friedman, me) is just confused? Art Spitzer Washington DC ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
Clearing up my own confusion, I see that Prof. Friedman's blog links to the January 24 decision of the district court, which explains: This Court notes that it previously dismissed plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper’s damages claims against all defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and against the individual defendants in their personal capacities on qualified immunity grounds. See Harper I, 345 F.Supp.2d at 1115-1119. That ruling was not disturbed by the Ninth Circuit. See Harper II. 445 F.3d at 1192. Although plaintiffs “ respectfully disagree” with this Court’s qualified immunity ruling, plaintiffs indicate the inclusion of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper’s damages claims in the second amended complaint was done to avoid waiving the claims on appeal. Pltffs’ Add. Br. at 1-2. This Court reaffirms its prior dismissal of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper’s damages claims. (Opinion at 4-5.) So there was indeed a final judgment as to call claims. Prof. Friedman's blog reports that On Feb. 7, Alliance Defense Fund filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Tyler and Kelsie Harper. So that appeal is presumably pending in the 9th Circuit and not affected by today's Supreme Court action. Art Spitzer ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
In a message dated 8/11/06 4:32:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the second appeal, the National School Boards Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus brief supporting the school district. The ACLU was not aware of the second appeal until the decision came down yesterday. No party (nor the other amici) had alerted us to it. Arthur B. Spitzer Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area 1400 20th Street, N.W. #119 Washington, D.C. 20036 T. 202-457-0800 F. 202-452-1868 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Teenagers The Spirit of Liberty
In a message dated 5/23/06 11:34:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: public schools are not the place and when in public school is not the time to engage in religious worship. Why is that so hard to understand? That really is the nub, isn't it? But my impression is that there are many millions of people in this country who actually find that incomprehensible; who believe that there is no time when and no place where organized religious worship is inappropriate (as long as it's their religion); and who firmly believe that if the government prevents them from engaging in organized religious worship at any time or place that is a tyrannical oppression of their religion and an attempt to "ban it from the public square." Short of getting Bill Gates to pay for all such people to spend six months in Riyadh, how does one seek to penetrate such an attitude? Art Spitzer (ACLU) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
In a message dated 12/13/05 2:42:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: St. Paul, in Romans 1:18ff, makes it clear that ALL men know there is a God; some worship Him, others don’t and hold down this truth (that there is a God) in unrighteousness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an “atheist” – meaning a person who really believes there is no God. Yes; as many atheists have long understood, no one *really* believes in God, many people just think they believe that. :) Art Spitzer (ACLU) (does not believe himself to be an atheist) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Passive Dispalys vs. Cathedrals: The Same or Not the Same
Yes, of course there's a difference between building a cathedral and building a nativity scene. My point was that Rick Duncan's reasoning ("If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de Mayo, and Earth Day, and pork producers day on the public square, then why can't it also celebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at school?") is no more persuasive than its equivalent ("if the state can build an office building, or a courthouse, or a science lab, or a homeless shelter, why the heck can't it also build a church or a seminary?"), which Rick quickly finds unpersuasive.
I don't agree, however, that building a creche "merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community." That seems to me a conclusory statement rather than reasoning. I can imagine many Americans saying that a governmnent-built church "merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community," and also saying that a church "does not exclude anyone" (after all, everyone is welcome to go inside), "nor ... harm anyone." And on the other hand I know many people (myself included) who think that a government-built nativity scene amounts to government taking an active role in spreading a central doctrinal message of one particular religion ("the messiah has come"), and does indeed exclude those whose beliefs are not reflected in -- in a word, are excluded from -- the government display. There are many other ways the government could recognize that Christians are part of the community (assuming that was somehow necessary in anation where Christians constitute the very large majority of the community -- how about government once in a while recognizing the "basic humanity of atheists as a part of the community"?)
If the question is whether the goverment can properly "recognize the basic humanity of group X as a part of the community," I'd say the answer is yes. One might put under that heading a government program teaching tolerance for all groups. And perhaps a reasonable criterion to separate "recognizing the basic humanity of Group X as part of the community" from "improperly making the government a celebrant of Group X's particular religious beliefs" would be whether the government plays a direct role in helping that religious group convey its particular beliefs to the world, whether by building it a church or by building a symbol of the group's special belief and erecting it in the public square.
Art Spitzer
(ACLU-DC)
In a message dated 11/5/05 9:47:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a huge difference, as I'm sure Art realizes and would argue persuasively in litigation if a state proposed to build a cathedral and conduct state-sponsored worship there, between a passive recognition by govt. that some part of the community is celebrating a holiday, such as Chanukah or Christmas, and the state building a cathedral and sponsoring worship. The one, to quote Sandy on another thread, merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community, as citizens whose culture is part of the rich diversity of our Nation.
When the government builds a cathedral for actual worship, it strikes at the core of establishment. A passive nativity scene, one of many displays on public property during the course of the year, is not such an establishment of religion. Including religious displays (among many secular ones) does not exclude anyone, nor do passive displays harm anyone. If you are offended by the gay pride display or the nativity display, you can avert your eyes. No harm, no foul.
But the point about this thread was Alito and his confirmation. I would love to see PFAW attack Alito as a dangerous nominee who will allow the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited, Christmas carols to be sung, and nativity scenes to be displayed. That makes Justice Alito
an "extremist" along with 80% of the American people.
And by the way, I think that, under the EC, FEMA could pay to rebuild a church, along with other private buildings(such as the ACLU headquarters), damaged by a hurricane or tornado. No religious purpose, and a neutral program such as this does not advance religion, so even Lemon should be satisfied. Here is another case where Alito might make a difference replacing O'C, who gets a little nervous when public funds are involved. She scares too easy in my opinion. Boo!
Rick Duncan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/4/05 12:38:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de Mayo, and Earth Day, and pork producers day on the public square, then why can't it also celebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at school?
Yes; if the state can build an office building, or a courthouse, or a science lab, or a homeless shelter, why the heck can't it also build a church or a
Cornell's Interim President addresses Intelligent Design
Hunter R. Rawlings III, the former President of Cornell University who was recently called back to be its Interim President, devoted most of the annual "State of the University Address" today to the intelligent design controversy. I think the following excerpts capture his central message: I am convinced that the political movement seeking to inject religion into state policy and our schools is serious enough to require our collective time and attention. Cornell’s history, its intellectual scope, and its current commitments position us well to contribute to the national debate on religion and science. . . . This is an issue that should engage not simply our science faculty . . . but, in particular, our social scientists and humanists. This is above all a cultural issue, not a scientific one. The controversy is about the tensions between science and belief, reason and faith, public policy and private religiosity. Modern research universities have become segmented. We have scientists over here, humanists and social scientists over there. Knowledge is divided into ever-smaller categories; our specialization becomes ever more narrow. I believe it is time to put the disparate parts of the modern research university back together. … Humanists and social scientists, whose expertise lies in understanding cultures and ideas, can – and should -- move us beyond ridiculing or ignoring our opponents or claiming that, at some level, science is good and faith is bad. They can keep us from claiming too much in the sphere of religion or in the sphere of science and give us the language we need to learn from each other. Consistent with Cornell’s land grant mission, I ask as well that humanists, social scientists, and scientists venture outside the campus to help the American public sort through these complex issues. I ask them to help a wide audience understand what kinds of theories, arguments, and conclusions deserve a place in the academy – and why it isn’t always a good idea to “teach the controversies.” … Cornellians who do will be acting in the great tradition of Cornell’s founders, Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White. The full text can be found at: http://www.cornell.edu/president/announcement_2005_1021.cfm Art Spitzer (Cornell '71) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: New Pledge of Allegiance Case, and precential effect of Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision
Perhaps the real explanation for the district judge's statement about being bound is that he wanted to do the right thing, but needed to place the blame elsewhere. Even life tenure doesn't solve all problems. Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: New Pledge of Allegiance Case, and precential effect of Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision
Brad assumes that when I said the judge "wanted to do the right thing," I meant the politically right thing or the the right thing by his personal lights. That's not at all what I meant, and I would agree with him that a judge is not supposed to follow such a course. What I meant was that the judge may have wanted to do the legally right thing -- as I believe he did -- but may have felt the need to seek the shelter of the 9th Circuit's previous decision to reduce the heat that would (and surely will) come his way because he did a wildly unpopular thing. However, now that I've seen the judge's candid footnote, I agree with Anthony Picarello that he seems to have explained his own reasons pretty well. Art Spitzer In a message dated 9/14/05 9:20:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that was the judge's reasoning, then regardless of whether his ultimate ruling was legally right or wrong, he doesn't understand his job. Judges aren't supposed to rule based one what they think is the right thing or the wrong thing. That's what legislators do. Judges are supposed to rule based on what the law says, regardless of whether or not the end result fits with what they think qualifies as "do[ing] the right thing". Brad - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:10 PM Subject: Re: New Pledge of Allegiance Case,and precential effect of Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision Perhaps the real explanation for the district judge's statement about being bound is that he wanted to do the right thing, but needed to place the blame elsewhere. Even life tenure doesn't solve all problems. Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Floodwaters and Undermined Walls
In a message dated 9/1/05 1:48:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I know now what I always suspected. If I cried out to Jim Henderson for succor, he might well help me but one part of his mind would be thinking or at least considering if he could use my suffering to advance his agenda. Frances Paterson For all we know Jim has sent a bigger contribution to the New Orleans relief effort than any of the rest of us. If Jim were in Louisiana he might be staffing a Red Cross shelter; my recollection is that he does a lot of personal (non-legal) pro bono work here. I doubt that any of us who aren't near New Orleans are devoting 100% of our attention to the suffering in New Orleans; I'm working on a brief. I share [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s view that there was nothing offensive about Jim's post. As to the proclamation, I do wish it had said something more like "My family and I are praying, and I call upon those who wish to do so to join us, and I call upon others to work and hope for relief from this disaster in the way that's meaningful to them." That wouldn't have been so hard to say, would it? Art Spitzer ACLU ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: UC system sued
In a message dated 8/29/05 11:36:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ed; I am simply not going to respond any further to your lay person's analysis of the law Mr. Brayton obviously doesn't need my help to defend himself, but as an experienced constitutional litigator let me say that I find Mr. Brayton's posts more careful with the facts, more logical, and better grounded in the law, than the posts on this subject by either Prof. Duncan or my friend Jim Henderson, whose statements about "standardless, unbridled discretion" seem to have little to do with the real world. I, for one, am glad to be able to benefit from Mr. Brayton's knowledge. Art Spitzer Legal Director ACLU of the National Capital Area Washington DC ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: The Original Message: UC system sued
In a message dated 8/29/05 4:52:39 PM, Jim Henderson writes: Art finds "standardless, unbridled discretion" discussions to have little to do with the real world ... No, that's not what I was trying to say. I think many First Amendment cases can still be won -- some by me, I hope -- because the government is engaged in "standardless, unbridled discretion." What I was trying to say was that Jim's assertion that the UC system was engaged in "standardless, unbridled discretion" when it refused to accept credits from, e.g., a science course that used a young earth creationist textbook, had "little to do with the real world." In other words, it seems to me that the rejection of credits from such a course is a clear example of *applying* reasonable and relevant academic standards, not the absence of standards. (I suppose it's possible that discovery will reveal that the UC system decides which high school courses to accept and which not to accept in an arbitrary and irrational way, but that seems to me quite unlikely.) What would be literally "standardless" (although not necessarily unconstitutional) would be for the UC system to accept credits from any course given by any high school, regardless of whether the course met minimum academic standards. And in a message dated 8/29/05 4:33:44 PM, Rick Duncan writes: In an e-mail message cited in the lawsuit, a university admissions official wrote that the content of courses that use textbooks from the two publishers is "not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." * * * The email quoted by the Chronicle may be a forgery, but if it is accurate it amounts to an admission that the university is targeting, at least in part, the religious viewpoints expressed in the textbooks. Not necessarily. It depends what the official meant when he used the word "viewpoints." Most likely he or she had not just read Lamb's Chapel, and was not using the word in a First Amendment viewpoint-discrimination sense. If what the official meant was that the course was rejected because it taught biology from the "viewpoint" that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and all facts about life on earth must be made to fit within that 6,000-year span, then the statement is not an "admission" of anything that will be disadvantageous to the UC system in litigation. I suppose "the earth was created 6,000 years ago" is a religious viewpoint, but then I suppose so is "circumference equals 3x diameter," see I Kings 7:23. But nothing in Lamb's Chapel or its progeny would require the UC system to accept credit from a high school geometry course that was based upon that "viewpoint." Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
The following useful perspective on ID comes from http://www.venganza.org/index.htm , which also contains related materials. If I properly understood Jim Henderson's posts yesterday, I believe the ACLJ would support FSM on the same grounds that it supports ID. Art Spitzer Washington, DC (I hope no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does, he or she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design. Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith. Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t. You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. [graph omitted from e-mail] In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. Sincerely Yours, Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen. ___ To post,
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
In a message dated 8/3/05 2:58:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As an Italian, however, I am offended by the use of spaghetti. Perhaps in order to more diverse you can change it to taco or matzah in future postings. If it were my own letter I'd be happy to do that, and also to substitute "ACLU Lawyers" for "Pirates" in case there are any offended pirates out there. Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/05 1:34:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: yet it's trumpeted as proof of the bible's accuracy in the very curriculum that the ACLU endorses. Art, are you there? Has the ACLU finally been freed from the dark side? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ Yes, I'm lurking here Jim. I was amused by the typo, but it's hardly surprising given that your organization chose a name so that its initials could mimic ours. The sincerest form of flattery, I've always thought. Art Spitzer ACLU ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: RLUIPA and Kelo v. City of New London .:.
In a message dated 6/24/05 10:03:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd also point out that (1) San Jose Christian College did not take a side in the current circuit split over the substantial burden analysis ... Is there an accessable source that summarizes the current state of the circuit split? It would be a favor if you could point me to it. Thanks, Arthur B. Spitzer Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area 1400 20th Street, N.W. #119 Washington, D.C. 20036 T. 202-457-0800 F. 202-452-1868 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aclu-nca.org ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Sorry Re: RLUIPA and Kelo v. City of New Lond on .:.
Sorry, that was not supposed to go to the whole list. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Ten Commandments
In a message dated 3/1/05 9:15:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey, I'm simply trying to prompt worthwhile conversation -- please feel free to answer whichever questions you think are most interesting! Four Justices will find both displays unconstitutional; Four Justices will find both displays constitutional; Justice O'Connor will split the baby, holding that Ten Commandments displays are simply cultural icons in Red counties, but that they are endorsements of religion in Blue counties, and everyone will be happy except people who are living in the wrong color. Art Spitzer ACLU ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Religion Clauses question
In a message dated 6/4/04 7:57:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed prior to the conveyance). Jim- You would have to say "except, perhaps, in Louisiana and all or part of Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado and Montana." Art ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Apologies Re: Fw: DC bar event
In a message dated 5/27/04 11:14:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just got this from the listserv, and thought you'd want to know that's where it went. :-) My apologies. I have no idea how I hit "reply" and sent a message to this list! Art Spitzer ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
The ACLU of Michigan put out the following press release on April 30: Press Statement Regarding "Call to Prayer" in Hamtramck Kary Moss, Executive Director April 30, 2004 In the past week, the ACLU of Michigan has received hundreds of call and emails from around the country from people asking our position on the amended Hamtramck noise ordinance (No. 434) passed by the City Council. The change in the ordinance occurred in response to a request that the City allow a Muslim call to prayer five times a day. We applaud the City for attempting to accommodate religious speech and there are ways that they can do it in a constitutional manner. The ACLU is a strong advocate of both religious freedom and the separation of church and state. We believe that government should remain neutral in matters of religion. It must not suppress the free exercise of religion nor may it promote religion over non-religion. It is because of the separation of church and state, not in spite of it, that Americans enjoy such a degree of religious freedom unknown to the rest of the world. And Americans take full advantage of their freedom: The United States is home to more than 1500 different religions, with more than 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques. Balancing these important constitutional rights is tricky: In an effort to be accommodating to members of the Muslim faith, the City has tried to make it lawful for a mosque to broadcast the call to prayer five times a day which would not have been possible under the original noise ordinance. That ordinance, which we also believe has its own constitutional problems, makes it unlawful "for any person to create, assist in creating any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, or any noise which either annoys, disturbs." The new amendment says: "The City shall permit call to prayer, church bells and other means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6am and 10pm for a duration not to exceed five minutes." (emphasis added). The city must allow for reasonable "accommodation" of religious speech, as it would for other forms of _expression_, but it cannot single out any religious speech whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other -- for favored treatment over other speech protected by the First Amendment. To solve this dilemma, make the original ordinance constitutional, and to accommodate the needs of Muslims, Christians, and members of other faiths, the City should fix the original ordinance and create what are called "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." These restrictions need to equally apply to other non-religious protected speech. The City can, for example, limit the hours, duration and maximum noise level, in which calls to prayer and ringing of church bells are permissible. It should do so by adopting specific neutral criteria that covers both religious and non-religious noise. The maximum level of sound permitted under the ordinance should be scientifically measurable and not subjectively based. To reiterate, the City has done its best to be sensitive to the needs of the community. It has, unfortunately, gone too far but it is a problem that needs to be corrected in the interests of all those who live in Hamtramck. == Art Spitzer ACLU Washington DC ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
