Marty puts the matter in the right analytical framework.
Arrangements regarding important child rearing issues are made, where
the family is intact, by the parents (typically) and the parents are
free, within fairly broad limits to be as unreasonable as they wish to
be. They are constrained by
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:13 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory
against antigayspeech?
No, the major purveyors are not street thugs.
-Original Message
I accept your helpful point. I did not mean to suggest that informal
violence is random. The Ku Klux Klan perpetrated informal, albeit
organized, violence.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007
1103 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
(o) 414-288-6908
(m)414-213-3957
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:32 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
constitutional: Recognition of gay rights would lead, and should lead,
to suppression of traditionalist religious groups' right to promote
their religious beliefs. Or am I mistaken?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 3:03 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory
against antigayspeech?
Let me make two
be outlawed. He and some others might think that's good. But I
just think it's important to recognize that that's the logical
implication of his argument.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Wednesday
, the violence that is glamorized by some rap
music -- as left, right, or something else is an exercise left to
the reader.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:32 PM
To: Law
Idleman
Marquette University Law School
- Original Message -
From: Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory against
antigayspeech
(again, if Michael's views are to be
accepted).
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:41 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is First Amendment
No, we don't all agree on a rigid speech-conduct distinction.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:43 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Speech and conduct
Setting
] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:58 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Could you be a bit more specific about the factual context of the Code
Pink demonstrations? How is it analogous to Westboro's conduct
David has it right: a compelling governmental interest in protecting a
discrete and insular minority -- one that is routinely victimized.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cruz
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:12 PM
To: Law
1. The Phelps group is doing more than just arguing a point of
view regarding sin and homosexuality.
2. There is a difference between saying God bless American
soldiers and Bush killed this soldier. The second clearly is meant
to insult. The relevant question is whether, in the
The Phelps case is easy because of the unique facts. I don't think that
the Code Pink protests come close to matching the Phelps' protests.
Several writers in this thread have made the point that there is
something special about funerals, and ceremony, and ritual, and grief,
and that the law
pretensions to viewpoint neutrality out the window
if that sort of exception is accepted (though fortunately I can't count
a single vote for it on today's Court).
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday
Could you be a bit more specific about the factual context of the Code
Pink demonstrations? How is it analogous to Westboro's conduct?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg,
Richard
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Law
Some of what I am about to say I have said before. But here goes
anyway.
What would be the risk of viewpoint discrimination, in a practical,
real-world, sense? I am not aware of any other groups who attempt to
inflict severe emotional distress on the occasion of the funeral of a
soldier killed
Thanks for the scorecard. It is helpful!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 2:33 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Michigan RFRA?
Reid v. Kenowa Hills Public
You remember correctly. He has been in office, I believe, for a very
long time. His constituents keep sending him back. Maybe we ought to
worry a bit more about what THEY think.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL
to them,
conservative Christians have given all religion a bad name.
The Baylor study may have picked up a small reversal of trend, or it may
have asked a slightly different question.
Quoting Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wonder if there is a surge of people reporting no religion
I note with some interest that in a recent piece on the visit of Pope
Benedict XVI to Mariazell in Austria, includes a statement to the effect
that progressive Catholics might not like the Holy Father's
proselytizing for the traditions of the faith. I seriously doubt that
the word as used can be
it MEANS
Really? I thought that was exactly how it was meant. As Will suggests,
if he were a progressive (not stipulating now what that means) he would
probably be described as sharing the good news.
Richard J. Dougherty
-Original Message-
From: Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
I wonder if there is a surge of people reporting no religion. The
Baylor study -- an extraordinary piece of social science work -- that
came out a year ago shows that 89.2% of Americans have a religious
affiliation, and of the remaining 10.8%, the study characterizes them as
persons without a
I have an article coming out soon that has the word proselytizing in
its title. Like Steve, I thought that I was being accurate.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:16 PM
To: Law
Isn't the whole point of the EC that the government cannot be permitted
to be a willing speaker when it comes to God-talk? And isn't this the
reason why a per se analysis is more consistent with that purpose than
any compelling interest test might be? The EC contains its own
compelling interest,
I wish that it were clear that there is a sharp line dividing the two.
There is, after all, a powerful dynamic relation between law and
morality, as there is between law and psychology, law and theology, and
any number of other relevant and germane factors and considerations.
Falwell obviously
, whether the heads were under the influence of
Communists or not. Am I missing something here?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom
Michael
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:25 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law
I don't disagree with the major thrust of what you say, except that I
wonder whether judges will avoid intruding in other categories of
cases.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:50 PM
I will defer to those who know this area of the law better than I do,
but, isn't it the case that secular courts will impose secular notions
of procedural due process on adjudications by religious bodies? If that
is so, then this case may be but so important, if it turns out that the
Episcopal
I will be the first to admit that I may have misread Jones v. Wolf, but
neutral principles of law is a rather capacious concept, and don't
forget Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and the
insistence there of the right of the Court to provide a remedy where
there was fraud, collusion,
the heads were under the influence of
Communists or not. Am I missing something here?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:25 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
to suggest that the Court was following a norm of deference to the
hierarchical authorities, whether the heads were under the influence of
Communists or not. Am I missing something here?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom
Colleagues, please excuse me, but I need
to get in touch with Frances Patterson. If she is following this list, I hope
that she will contact me ASAP. I am working on an article, and an earlier post
from her on this list raised some matters that are particularly relevant to
that enterprise.
I agree.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Landsberg
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 4:22 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: From the list custodian re: theological discussions
Hallelujah!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/2/2006
Arent theological claims a bit
beyond the scope of the discussion on this listserv? I have no problem with
theological claims, and would have no problem discussing this claim. But not
here.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Not everybody is happy.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006
12:47 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Fox News Forgets Fact
in Christian Graduation Speech Story
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
With all due respect, the prayer was hardly private.
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Lash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:14 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Teenagers The Spirit of Liberty
I think that the denigration of Rick and his
Cross-religious dialogue,
without some understanding of its context or setting, can hardly be the measure
or substance of toleration. Actions also help shape and define
toleration. They are at least as important as words are. Of course,
in some settings, words take on action-like
How is toleration advanced if a group of
intolerant students is allowed to bully and harass gay and lesbian students?
This question is especially acute in light of the sorry history of harassment
and worse of gay and lesbian people. And it would be disingenuous
in the extreme to argue
It seems that the question on the table is
the rights of military chaplains, especially evangelical
Protestant ones who seem to be at the forefront of the agitation here.
But their rights have to be understood
in context. The military chaplaincies were not established in order to
. The contributions
to the 501(c)(4) are not tax deductible.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday
. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 5:41 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Rick Garnett
Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:50 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Excessive entanglement
I think that when it comes to religious organizations, the
Religion Clauses create a zone of autonomy that may have
quite different contours than
the Religion part about improper control of churches?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Excessive entanglement
I think
made Cardinal
Levada feel like an ³outsider² in his political community?
Greg Wallace
Campbell University School of Law
From: Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:23:52 -0400
To: Law
How is the position at issue anything
other than discrimination?
From: Marc Stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:47
AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board
of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
Marci
These questions are posed to no one in particular, so everybody is free to
respond -- or not.
Does it matter that Catholic Charities is what Noonan and Gaffney might call a
double duty organization or institution? That is, the spheres or both church
and state have grown so that they
Isn't Lemon v. Kurtzman a good place to begin a meaningful inquiry into
the contours of excessive entanglement? Burger identifies several
considerations that informed the judgment of the Court on this point:
the substantial religious character of the[] church-related schools';
the need to monitor
Isn't Gonzales v. O Centro rather more helpful than either Sherbert or
Yoder?
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 1:09 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Sabbatarians and deadlines
(1) I
: Wednesday, March 22, 2006
6:41 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities
Issue
Newsom Michael wrote:
I
am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people are trying to get out
from under an oppressive regime the likes of which conservative believers have
not had
The sentence has to be read in context. The issue is the reach or ambit
of claims of religious associational autonomy and privacy. To the
extent that the law recognizes or grants or accommodates the claim, the
law is declaring the claim to be religious. I suppose one could say
that we
I don't understand your point about free passes.
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Oman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:28 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
I am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 3:36 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
Could you give some examples of gay rights
proponents who ignore religious liberty
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:25
PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 3:36 PM
To: Law
imposes.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas
Law School
727 E. Dean
Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006
12:23 PM
To: Law
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 3:36 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Could you give some examples of gay
.
My broader point is that general terms like exclude, harass,
and worse are probably cast at too high a level of generality here.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:34 AM
No, it really isnt nonsense. Anti-gay
violence exists on a far larger scale than you are prepared to admit. Sorry.
From: Brad M Pardee
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:55
AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
that religions, religious
organizations, and religious believers have special and unique features.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:32 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:16 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Actually Glendon's point is debatable. In the United States, the
predominant
The fact that there are laws in place is, often times, scant comfort.
The religious liberty issue may, in the final analysis for some people,
merely mean the liberty to bash in gay heads, all in name of God.
-Original Message-
From: Brad Pardee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday,
The right thing to do? I am not so sure.
You did say that some children will suffer. Is that a good thing? Oops. This
discussion probably belongs off-list.
From: Rick Duncan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:15
PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law
But the Religious Right Catholic, Protestant
and otherwise insists that gay people CAN be reasonably asked to live
celibate lives, if they cannot live heterosexual lives.
I merely wish to point out that some deny
the equivalence that you posit. I am not saying that I agree or disagree
With respect, I am not sure that characterizing the relation as akin to
that of employer and employee tells us how to decide the question. I
cannot imagine that there is a strong governmental interest in the
gender of clergypersons. Any expression or statement of such an
interest clearly results
of their
constitutionally protected rights to lobby or electioneer, or otherwise
refuses to subsidize a wide range of constitutional rights, that too is
permissible.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent
I am still unpersuaded. I don't see the relevance of your examples.
You see no difference between the relation between clergy and religious
organizations and other employment relations? We are talking about
religions here. The Religion Clauses have to mean at least that we
recognize -- for
] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: State
RFRAandnonreligiousgroupsthathaveconscientiousobjectionstoanti
discriminationlaws
In this particular, specific instance, I believe that the
answer is yes. Otherwise
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 9:59 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE:
StateRFRAandnonreligiousgroupsthathaveconscientiousobjectionst
oantidiscriminationlaws
The question is really not about discrimination at all. It
is about
My point is that the ministerial exception should be broadly construed
and applied. In the specific context of clergy, the state should not
quickly or easily claim that a religious organization is ineligible for
a subsidy if it is guilty of what the state claims is discrimination.
The question
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: State RFRA
andnonreligiousgroupsthathaveconscientiousobjections
toantidiscrimination laws
My point is that the ministerial exception should be broadly
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:03 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: State RFRA and nonreligious groups that
haveconscientiousobjections to antidiscrimination laws
I am troubled by your Boy Scouts hypo. First, how does
I will just note that Congress has the
discretion to decide how to handle the matter. You just dont agree with
the approach that Congress took.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006
10:48 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject:
You assume that the placement of a drug on
Schedule I ends the discussion. I hope that you do not think that it is
jesting to suppose that that placement does not end the discussion. Congress
surely must have some sense of the consequences of its decisions (1) to place
the drug on Schedule
I think that it is too early to tell one
way or the other. Dont forget that he has a wily antagonist, if that is
not too strong a word, in Justice Stevens.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006
11:24 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
The Congress and the President that
enacted RFRA thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was a palpable, and not
lurking, constitutional error. On that point I agree with that Congress
and that President. But even if there were an error on the constitutional
point, it does not matter,
it can
sometimes be abused. And we ought not fail to teach something or allow
something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line
differently.
Steve
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Newsom Michael wrote:
This
is, of course, the central problem: how
The problem is just not the nature of the difficulties
teaching about religion necessarily raises, but also the problem of enforcement.
It does no good if the teachers will not abide by the resolution of the sticky
problems made by the appropriate school or other officials including
We agree on the question of goals and
objectives, as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2. I still am not convinced,
however, that most teachers will be monitored, even informally, to make sure
that they act in accordance with our agreed upon goals and objectives.
It may be, in the final
Bobby, as they say in the hood, I
feel ya. I couldnt agree more that parenting and teaching
should be about teaching the child to develop thoughtful opinions
independently. I think, however, that there are many parents
and teachers who do not agree with us.
Some of the rhetoric bandied
be abused. And we ought not fail to teach something or allow
something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line
differently.
Steve
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Newsom Michael wrote:
This
is, of course, the central problem: how to enforce
School of Law
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:34 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: N.Y. Court Rejects Employers' Challenge to ContraceptionLaw
I don't think
How do we make sure that we have teachers
who think teaching the controversies is more important than guaranteeing that the
students adopt a particular substantive resolution?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006
3:46 PM
To:
Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:43 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Evaluation of people's religious beliefs
Eugene, I think that the real-world answer is your #4. I
think that the law contains some normative propositions about
religious belief
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:48 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics '
Subject: RE: N.Y. Court Rejects Employers' Challenge to ContraceptionLaw
In response to Marty:
First, one might ask what interest of
I think that the state has a strong, and perhaps compelling, interest in
the contraceptive needs of employers. Starting from that position, it
is easy to justify the intervention, at least as an initial proposition.
In other words, I find this problem to be extremely difficult, put
perhaps not
There is a way of testing what is happening
here: why not have the state acquire the property and then rebuild the
structure and maintain it as some sort of museum? (The state could, of course,
seek contributions from private individuals and groups to help meet the costs
of rebuilding.)
Doesn't Boerne answer the question posed in your second paragraph?
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Marty makes an excellent point
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:18 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Doesn't Boerne answer the question posed in your second paragraph?
-Original
all such
decisions as presumptive religious favoritism.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:43 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist
but *not* the
discretionary regulatory program. It seems to me the answer is no.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:52 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE
Eugene, I think that the real-world answer is your #4. I think that the
law contains some normative propositions about religious belief. You
know that I start from the Protestant Empire premise. But you don't
have to agree with me as to the continued existence of the Protestant
Empire (I know
Mark, Happy New Year!
I do have an article that came out in 2005:
Michael deHaven Newsom, Some Kind of Religious Freedom: National Prohibition
and the Volstead Acts Exemption for the Religious Use of Wine, 70
Brooklyn L. Rev. 739 (2005).
Thanks, Michael
From: Scarberry, Mark
that someone
entitled to justice was denied it, assumes the truth of the justice one
was denied. To say someone does not measure up, implies that there is a
standard by which we can make the measure.
Frank
On Friday, December 02, 2005, at 10:23AM, Newsom Michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Swedish Pastor Beats Hate Crime Rap
Newsom Michael wrote:
I agree that there is a standard. I just don't find it in the
Declaration. I find the hypocrisy of Jefferson just too much to
stomach. I can't take him seriously. And I don't. Sometimes the
messenger
. That some people
see these as live religious symbols ought not, it seems to me, render
their use unconstitutional (or even improper).
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
think that your position might be construed as
hegemonic?
From: Ed Brayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
2:30 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Swedish Pastor Beats
Hate Crime Rap
Newsom Michael wrote:
Shouldnt
we be careful
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:30 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Swedish Pastor Beats Hate Crime Rap
Newsom Michael wrote:
Shouldn't we be careful in applying American
Free speech may be a human right,
universal or not, but surely you dont contend that the right is utterly
absolute without any limit whatsoever, do you? Is there an absolute right
to cry fire in a crowded theater?
I will leave it to others to defend
bullies like the good reverend.
Shouldnt we be careful in applying
American notions of free speech to other cultures and traditions? Sweden may have
had good and sufficient reasons for taking a different position on the question.
I would be curious to know if the Swedish Court relied at all on American
cases.
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
