You say religion of peace. Perhaps you mean religion of pacifism (not the same, see Brish Quakers circa 1939). Thus rephrased, point taken.
Richard Menard
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
202-736-8016 (office)
202-246-7408 (mobile)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri Nov 12 12:26:45 2004
Subject: Re: "Religion of peace"? .:.
Except for the Society of Friends, the Mennonites and a few other
pietistic faiths, please tell me what religion out there qualifies as a
"religion of peace"?
Pual Finkelman
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> Marc makes a good point, but say that there is a dispute about whether the particular strain of, say, Islam -- or for that matter, Christianity -- to which the defendant has converted is a "religion of peace" or a religion that allows or even suggests violence that U.S. law would condemn. What evidence would the state and the defendant introduce? Statements of coreligionists? Religious experts who would testify about what they think the "real" meaning of the religion is (since we know that for most religions, there will be some people who can interpret it as countenancing violence)? Would we feel comfortable having juries resolve these questions?
>
> Indeed, prison officials do sometimes evaluate whether certain religious publications advocate violence. But I had thought that the prison cases have been seen as an unfortunate though necessary departure from traditional norms of government action. Would it be proper to extend them to death penalty sentencing phases, where a person's life would turn in part on a jury's evaluation of whether "a church advocates violence"?
>
> Eugene
>
> Marc Stern writes:
>
>
> So activity in amnesty international counts ,but not in a religious group? Why can't the state prove that a church advocates violence to rebut a mitigating showing of membership in the Church of Creator .Prison officials make that showing all the time both under RLUIPA and under O"'Lone and the Constituion..
> The problem all around with religion Clause analysis in prisons (and other total institutions such as children's homes) is that the government exercise more power over every aspect of life than it can in "civilian" applications which no doubt were at the forefront of the framers minds.
>
> Marc Stern
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Evidence of religious conversion at a death penaltysentencinghearing
>
>
>
> But would the conversion to the World Church of the Creator (white supremacist religion in prison and on the web) also count? I think not, which means the courts cannot say that conversion to religion per se indicates good behavior. They need to stick to the objective facts of good behavior. The appeal to Christianity is an attempt to bring into the case mom and apple pie, but it can't be a legitimate criterion, under the rule against sect preferences in both Religion Clauses.
>
> Marci
>
>
>
> I assume that the point is not that Christianity has special status, but
> that the conversion to a system of religious belief is (or so a jury might
> find) indicative of a likelihood of redemption (in a secular sense) and htat
> the person need not be executed to protect society.
> I would imagine that the same would be true if a convict showed devotion to
> some secular equivalent. Under the court's cap[ital punishment rules ,post
> arrest conduct in jail-even after conviction and on retrial-- is relevant as
> a mitigating factor.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> 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.
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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
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.
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations on 11/12/2004, 07:08:04 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
_______________________________________________ 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
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.
