No, definitely *not* what anyone would want happening to them!
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence VanDyke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 8:39 PM Subject: RE: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 > Hey Mark - I subscribe to the UCLA religion and law listserv (which I > find pretty depressing, not just because a couple of the law professors > have taken Leiter's side against me in the past). But this is really > funny. Scroll down and look at messages number 4 & 5!! This is not > what you want to have happen to you!! :) Hilarious! Especially cuz this > Newsom guy is one of the ones that wrote something agreeing with Leiter. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 > > Send Religionlaw mailing list submissions to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Religionlaw digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 2. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) > 3. Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 4. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) > 5. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) > 6. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) > 7. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael) > 8. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Amar D. Sarwal) > 9. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Paul Finkelman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:07:39 -0700 (PDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I will be out of the office until April 14, 2004, and will not be > checking email regularly while I am away. If you need assistance prior > to my return, please contact: Kara Stein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (212) > 891-6742. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:54:50 -0400 > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 1. Actually "homophobia" refers to FEAR, not hatred, of gay people. > 2. Are you suggesting that the employee in this case loves gay > people? What is your authority for such a claim? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:47 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case > > Again, he did not say that gay people were of less value. Instead, as I > gather, he was not willing to express any support for their homosexual > orientation/conduct/choice. Christians are commanded to love all, no > matter how they have sinned. > > Are you saying that one must find worth in the gay > orientation/conduct/choice to not be considered a homophobe? > > To be clear, my understanding of the term homophobe is one who hates > homosexuals. I don't think this gentleman qualifies. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:57 PM > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's religious beliefs prevent > him from affirming the value of gay people. I call that homophobia. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:48 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case > > > I think you're missing the point. The gentleman was not homophobic. He > just had no interest in affirming values with which he disagreed. A > related > example: I am not anti-Muslim, because I do not believe in Allah, nor > do I > wish to affirm his existence or value. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >; > "Law & Religion issues for Law > Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:49 PM > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > To the extent, and only to the extent, that AT&T Broadband failed > explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective > functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right. Surely AT&T is > entitled to have a harmonious work environment for ALL of its employees, > both gays and homophobes. And it should be given some latitude in > achieving that objective. The devil is in the details, I suspect. I'll > feel more confident about this case -- one way or the other -- after I > get a chance to read it cover to cover. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040411/2e753f8 > c/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:56:02 -0700 (PDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > The offices of the American Jewish Committee will be closed on Monday, > April 12, and Tuesday, April 13, in observance of the concluding days of > the Passover holiday. I will not have access to e-mail on those days. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:58:27 -0400 > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Keeping Eugene's thoughts in mind, I will not respond to this stuff on > the listserv. Rick's comments below do nothing to further the goals and > objectives of this listserv but merely his own personal agenda, to which > I will respond off line. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > --- Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's > > religious beliefs prevent > > him from affirming the value of gay people. I call > > that homophobia. > > It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you > from affirming the value of Christians who believe > that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call > that Christophobia and religious bigotry. > > Rick Duncan > > > > > ===== > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or > Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > numbered." --The Prisoner > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:01:10 -0400 > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Rick, you are so full of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a Christian, but I don't buy > into your right wing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I also suspect that my Catholicism is > something that you can't handle.) No one on this listserv is more > ideological or bigoted than you are. Anybody who disagrees with your > right wing views is a bigot. It's like the pot calling the kettle > black. You are a hateful bigot and a disgrace! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > --- Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's > > religious beliefs prevent > > him from affirming the value of gay people. I call > > that homophobia. > > It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you > from affirming the value of Christians who believe > that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call > that Christophobia and religious bigotry. > > Rick Duncan > > > > > ===== > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or > Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > numbered." --The Prisoner > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:03:24 -0400 > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I made a terrible mistake and hit the wrong button. I blew up at Rick > Duncan, and meant the message to go only to him. I am asking Eugene to > pull it, for my intention, again, was to respond to Rick and Rick alone. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Newsom Michael > Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:58 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > Keeping Eugene's thoughts in mind, I will not respond to this stuff on > the listserv. Rick's comments below do nothing to further the goals and > objectives of this listserv but merely his own personal agenda, to which > I will respond off line. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > --- Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's > > religious beliefs prevent > > him from affirming the value of gay people. I call > > that homophobia. > > It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you > from affirming the value of Christians who believe > that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call > that Christophobia and religious bigotry. > > Rick Duncan > > > > > ===== > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or > Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > numbered." --The Prisoner > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:10:52 -0400 > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I see that my timing was off, as my inability to hit the right button. > I apologize to everybody on the listserv for this diatribe. Again, I > tried to send it to Rick only. Again, I apologize. Neither Rick's > remarks nor my response to Rick have any business on the listserv. But > I take responsibility for losing my cool. I cannot promise that I will > never lose my cool again, but I promise to learn how to hit the right > button on these computers. > > To Eugene, in particular, I owe an apology, and I hereby extend it. I > really did try to do it right, but didn't. I don't handle attacks on my > integrity well, and I need to avoid losing my cool, even though provoked > mightily by Rick. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Newsom Michael > Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 1:01 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > Rick, you are so full of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a Christian, but I don't buy > into your right wing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I also suspect that my Catholicism is > something that you can't handle.) No one on this listserv is more > ideological or bigoted than you are. Anybody who disagrees with your > right wing views is a bigot. It's like the pot calling the kettle > black. You are a hateful bigot and a disgrace! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > --- Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's > > religious beliefs prevent > > him from affirming the value of gay people. I call > > that homophobia. > > It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you > from affirming the value of Christians who believe > that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call > that Christophobia and religious bigotry. > > Rick Duncan > > > > > ===== > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or > Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > numbered." --The Prisoner > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:24:00 -0400 > From: "Amar D. Sarwal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > I think the term has evolved to mean hatred of homosexuality. As for > whether he loves them or not, I cannot say. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Newsom Michael > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:54 PM > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > 1.. Actually "homophobia" refers to FEAR, not hatred, of gay people. > > 2.. Are you suggesting that the employee in this case loves gay > people? What is your authority for such a claim? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:47 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case > > > > Again, he did not say that gay people were of less value. Instead, as > I gather, he was not willing to express any support for their homosexual > orientation/conduct/choice. Christians are commanded to love all, no > matter how they have sinned. > > > > Are you saying that one must find worth in the gay > orientation/conduct/choice to not be considered a homophobe? > > > > To be clear, my understanding of the term homophobe is one who hates > homosexuals. I don't think this gentleman qualifies. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:57 PM > > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > > No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's religious beliefs prevent > him from affirming the value of gay people. I call that homophobia. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:48 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case > > > I think you're missing the point. The gentleman was not homophobic. > He > just had no interest in affirming values with which he disagreed. A > related > example: I am not anti-Muslim, because I do not believe in Allah, nor > do I > wish to affirm his existence or value. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Law & Religion issues for Law > Academics" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:49 PM > Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case > > > To the extent, and only to the extent, that AT&T Broadband failed > explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective > functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right. Surely AT&T > is > entitled to have a harmonious work environment for ALL of its > employees, > both gays and homophobes. And it should be given some latitude in > achieving that objective. The devil is in the details, I suspect. > I'll > feel more confident about this case -- one way or the other -- after I > get a chance to read it cover to cover. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040411/ea2a03c > 5/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:27:56 -0500 > From: Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Rick: > > If you were confronted with hard scientific evidence that people who > choose same sex partners are biologically/chemically inclined to such > partners, and that it is no more a matter of "choice" then it is for a > straight person to choose an opposite sex partner, would you still > conclude that it is a "serious moral disorder?" After all, if God made > some people in such a way that they are only interested in same sex > partners, are they truly making a "moral" choice in the matter, or are > there merely following the biological/chemical make-up with which they > were born. Since their behavior would not affect anyone but other > people who were so biologically and chemically made up, what would be > the moral problem? > > I am not a Christian, so forgive me if I am misunderstanding your faith, > > but aren't there issues in Christian theology about people "casting > stones" of moral condemnation at others, and, are you not supposed to > "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" IF you were born > with the came biological and chemical inclinations, would you want > others pointing a finger at you, and saying, because of how you were > born -- because of how God made you -- you are inherently immoral? > > -- > Paul Finkelman > Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Tulsa College of Law > 3120 East 4th Place > Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 > > 918-631-3706 (office) > 918-631-2194 (fax) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you > >from affirming the value of Christians who believe > >that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call > >that Christophobia and religious bigotry. > > > >Rick Duncan > > > > > > > > > >===== > >Rick Duncan > >Welpton Professor of Law > >University of Nebraska College of Law > >Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040411/502d66d > c/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Religionlaw mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > End of Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 > ***************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
