Ouch! I bow my head in shame! :-( A lesson learned the hard way. What one gets for reveling in other's mistakes - my apologies (to all)!
-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence VanDyke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 8:40 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' 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
