Re: Comments From Brian Leiter
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Steven Jamar wrote: Jamar wrote: >> Fun as this philosophical stuff is, I wonder how much it really matters >> for the practical arena of the law. Leiter is making the case that it >> matters a lot. And I'm becoming convinced that he might be right - >> despite my generally being very skeptical about the efficacy of such >> philosophical arguments being ported into the law for such issues. >> Since skepticism is a philosophical position, you're in! :-) Take care, Frank ___ 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: FYI An Interesting Case
The ATT pledge did not require that people be able to work together. It required that they announce that they value each others' lifestyle-and it is hard to see why a company has an interest in its employees moral views. If this pledge were enforced evenhandedly, would it not require gays to value the lifestyle and values of religious opponents of a "gay lifestyle." I bet is it not so understood. The company's reaction about diversity suggests that the company does not understand the pledge to apply equally to all religious views-itself a possible violation of Title VII. Marc Stern ___ 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: FYI An Interesting Case
. > >The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to challenge similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court challenges to the "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, which he said often aims at training workers to accept and value diversity, including homosexuality. > >"I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said. > >Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the company such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious purposes, Mr. Whitehead said. > >"All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a sinful lifestyle," said Mr. Whitehead. > >But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did. > >In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. > > > > > > > > > >--- >This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm) >For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com > >Copyright (c) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. > >___ >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 > -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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 Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (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 ___ 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: FYI An Interesting Case
s to reasonably accommodate >> the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will >> create an undue hardship on the company to do so. >> > >> >Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing >> or agreeing with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged >> not to discriminate against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, >> president of the Rutherford Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno. >> > >> >"This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. >> Whitehead said. "It concerns the freedom of conscience - the right of >> individuals to object to something they believe is wrong, especially when >> it contradicts their religious beliefs, whether it is war, abortion, >> homosexuality or a number of other issues." >> > >> >A spokesman for Comcast, which owns AT&T Broadband, said, the >> company "is disappointed in the court's ruling," which they said appears >> to ignore attempts by companies "to foster diversity and >> nondiscrimination in the workplace." >> > >> >The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is >> reviewing the case and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask >> the court to reinstate him as a quota specialist, instead seeking >> monetary compensation. He now works for Mental Health Corporation of >> Denver as a counselor. >> > >> >The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to >> challenge similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court >> challenges to the "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, >> which he said often aims at training workers to accept and value >> diversity, including homosexuality. >> > >> >"I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said. >> > >> >Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the >> company - such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious >> purposes, Mr. Whitehead said. >> > >> >"All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the >> homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a >> sinful lifestyle," said Mr. Whitehead. >> > >> >But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and >> they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did. >> > >> >In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could >> have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting >> more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company >> intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to >> discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >--- >> >This article was mailed from The Washington Times >> (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm) >> >For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com >> > >> >Copyright (c) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. >> > >> >___ >> >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 >> > >> >>-- >>Nathan Oman >> >>http://www.tutissima.com >>http://www.timesandseasons.org >>-- >> >>___ >>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 > > > >Douglas Laycock >University of Texas Law School >727 E. Dean Keeton St. >Austin, TX 78705 > 512-232-1341 (voice) > 512-471-6988 (fax) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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
Re: Re: Lofton/State
My memory is vague on this, but didn't the Court pretty much say in Webster that preambles and similar legislative recitals are nonjusticiable? I think Stevens was the only one who wanted to consider the Missouri legislature's statement about when life begins. At 02:58 PM 4/7/2004 -0500, you wrote: Many thanks to Jim for sending this along. Most of the constitutions on the list, of course, are quite old. The youngest is Hawaii (1959). Two questions: Would there be an Establishment Clause issue today if contemporary constitution drafters adopted such language? (I put entirely to one side whether anyone would have standing to sue. The issue is what a "conscientious constitutional drafter" should do.) Secondly, even if the answer to the first question is no, would it be permissible today to place "In the Almighty God We Trust" on the state flag or adopt as the "state song" (to be taught to and sung by school children) that beings with acknowledgment of "Almighty God"? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:39:23 EDT Subject: Re: Lofton/State I may have missed this in one of the other posts, but I received an email from outside this list that evidences the inclusion of such invocations of the Divine in constitutions of virtually every one of the fifty states. I can't tell from the source whether this reflects current, as well as historic provisions of these constitutions, but I imagine it would be easy to confirm. The list is below. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor_and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe. Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .. Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty . establish this Constitution... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. establish this Constitution. Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of t! he State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government. Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings to establish this Constitution Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution. Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy. Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction. Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ...and devoutly imploring His direction . Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedo
RE: Comments From Brian Leiter
My comment concerned Mr. Van Dyke, who, as a law student, ventured far afield of his discipline, with predictable results. If I failed to make that clear through the parenthetical reference below, I regret it; I certainly was not commenting on Steve's post. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Newsom Michael wrote: > I hope that you did not mean to suggest that my colleague was being > arrogant, and not knowledgeable about the subject matter. I admit that > I don't know anything about it, but Steve does. > > -Original Message- > From: Michael MASINTER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:17 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Comments From Brian Leiter > > Isn't this just one more example of what Sandy has called the law > professor as nuclear physicist -- the arrogance of assuming that because > we are lawyers (or in this case a law student), we are for that reason > masters of any discipline we find interesting at the moment? How likely > is it that Nature or Science would publish an article or book review by > a > biologist seeking to elaborate flaws in the application by various > courts > of the Lemon test? > > Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue > Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 > Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal > Panel ___ 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: Re: Lofton/State
Many thanks to Jim for sending this along. Most of the constitutions on the list, of course, are quite old. The youngest is Hawaii (1959). Two questions: Would there be an Establishment Clause issue today if contemporary constitution drafters adopted such language? (I put entirely to one side whether anyone would have standing to sue. The issue is what a "conscientious constitutional drafter" should do.) Secondly, even if the answer to the first question is no, would it be permissible today to place "In the Almighty God We Trust" on the state flag or adopt as the "state song" (to be taught to and sung by school children) that beings with acknowledgment of "Almighty God"? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:39:23 EDT Subject: Re: Lofton/State I may have missed this in one of the other posts, but I received an email from outside this list that evidences the inclusion of such invocations of the Divine in constitutions of virtually every one of the fifty states. I can't tell from the source whether this reflects current, as well as historic provisions of these constitutions, but I imagine it would be easy to confirm. The list is below. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor_and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe. Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .. Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty . establish this Constitution... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. establish this Constitution. Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of t! he State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government. Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings to establish this Constitution Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution. Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy. Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction. Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ...and devoutly imploring His direction . Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom . establish this Constitution Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almight
Re: FYI An Interesting Case
In a message dated 4/7/2004 3:54:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW, it seems to me that having the state require an oath and having AT&T require an oath are different sorts of things. The state has more guns than AT&T does. Of course, the State, at least since Barnette, has always been required to give special regard to the conscientious dissenter in the pledge cases. So, absent evidence of more than a de minimus impact on the dissentiphobic employer, the decision seems about right. Jim "Neologiphobic" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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: FYI An Interesting Case
r if they did. In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. --- This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm) For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com Copyright (c) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. ___ 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 ___ 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: FYI An Interesting Case
ter diversity and >> nondiscrimination in the workplace." >> > >> >The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is >> reviewing the case and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask >> the court to reinstate him as a quota specialist, instead seeking >> monetary compensation. He now works for Mental Health Corporation of >> Denver as a counselor. >> > >> >The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to >> challenge similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court >> challenges to the "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, >> which he said often aims at training workers to accept and value >> diversity, including homosexuality. >> > >> >"I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said. >> > >> >Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the >> company such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious >> purposes, Mr. Whitehead said. >> > >> >"All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the >> homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a >> sinful lifestyle," said Mr. Whitehead. >> > >> >But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and >> they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did. >> > >> >In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could >> have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting >> more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company >> intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to >> discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >--- >> >This article was mailed from The Washington Times >> (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm) >> >For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com >> > >> >Copyright (c) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. >> > >> >___ >> >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 >> > >> >>-- >>Nathan Oman >> >>http://www.tutissima.com >>http://www.timesandseasons.org >>-- >> >>___ >>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 > > > >Douglas Laycock >University of Texas Law School >727 E. Dean Keeton St. >Austin, TX 78705 > 512-232-1341 (voice) > 512-471-6988 (fax) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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: FYI An Interesting Case
t to even reasonably accommodate him," and >they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did. > >In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could >have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting >more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company >intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to >discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. > > > > > > > > > >--- >This article was mailed from The Washington Times >(http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm) >For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com > >Copyright (c) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. > >___ >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 > -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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: 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. -Original Message- From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FYI An Interesting Case Importance: High Rick Duncan has sent you an article from The Washington Times. Rick Duncan's comments: --- WORKER OPPOSED TO GAYS WINS SUIT By Amy Fagan THE WASHINGTON TIMES --- An AT&T Broadband employee who was fired after refusing to abide by company rules that he said violated his religious beliefs about homosexuality has won a federal court case. Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado awarded Albert Buonanno of Denver $146,269 for lost salary, loss of 401(k) matching contributions and compensation for emotional distress in a Friday ruling released this week. The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for nearly two years. Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a "certificate of understanding" acknowledging that he agreed to the policy. The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so. Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno. "This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. Whitehead said. "It concerns the freedom of conscience - the right of individuals to object to something they believe is wrong, especially when it contradicts their religious beliefs, whether it is war, abortion, homosexuality or a number of other issues." A spokesman for Comcast, which owns AT&T Broadband, said, the company "is disappointed in the court's ruling," which they said appears to ignore attempts by companies "to foster diversity and nondiscrimination in the workplace." The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is reviewing the case and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask the court to reinstate him as a quota specialist, instead seeking monetary compensation. He now works for Mental Health Corporation of Denver as a counselor. The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to challenge similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court challenges to the "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, which he said often aims at training workers to accept and value diversity, including homosexuality. "I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said. Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the company - such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious purposes, Mr. Whitehead said. "All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a sinful lifestyle," said Mr. Whitehead. But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did. In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. --- This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.c
Re: FYI An Interesting Case
and they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did. > >In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. > > > > > > > > > >--- >This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm) >For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com > >Copyright (c) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. > >___ >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 > -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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 Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (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
Re: FYI An Interesting Case
Of course, to describe the policy at issue as progressive is to betray a certain bias about it. A bias contrary to the one I have revealed in responding thus. But discourse about the legal and constitutional issues at stake can so easily be clouded by the decision to characterize one side with such laudatory or noble motivations, particularly since it would, in this case, leave one with the negative pregnant impression about the contrarian view. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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: Comments From Brian Leiter
I hope that you did not mean to suggest that my colleague was being arrogant, and not knowledgeable about the subject matter. I admit that I don't know anything about it, but Steve does. -Original Message- From: Michael MASINTER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:17 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Comments From Brian Leiter Isn't this just one more example of what Sandy has called the law professor as nuclear physicist -- the arrogance of assuming that because we are lawyers (or in this case a law student), we are for that reason masters of any discipline we find interesting at the moment? How likely is it that Nature or Science would publish an article or book review by a biologist seeking to elaborate flaws in the application by various courts of the Lemon test? Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Steven Jamar wrote: > It seems all in all that Leiter is mostly just giving Van Dyke too much > credit on one point - that Van Dyke knows the difference between an "a > priori" theory and a theory or perspective that does in fact underlie a > field - for good and sufficient reasons - "a posteriori". Or perhaps > Van Dyke was just being careless with words. Or maybe Van Dyke > intended to convey what Leiter (correctly) understands by "a prior". > > I suspect Van Dyke was just trying to make an argument that teaching > this stuff is constitutional - and that he did not fully understand the > import of his use of words. > > Can one make the argument that teaching it is constitutional without > damning methodological naturalism as a priori? That is, if MN indeed > is what was found rather than what is assumed, can one claim that > teaching ID is, if not equally valid, at least sufficiently valid to be > taught? > > I think not. And so the "a priori" terminology has to be intentional > and not a mere mistake or overstatement - or else it really is ignorant > without the depth to get or even make the point. > > Hmmm. How else can I waste time to avoid doing the tedious task on my > desk today? > > Fun as this philosophical stuff is, I wonder how much it really matters > for the practical arena of the law. Leiter is making the case that it > matters a lot. And I'm becoming convinced that he might be right - > despite my generally being very skeptical about the efficacy of such > philosophical arguments being ported into the law for such issues. > > Steve > > -- > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: > 202-806-8017 > Howard University School of Law fax: > 202-806-8428 > 2900 Van Ness Street NW > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Washington, DC 20008 > http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar > > "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as > old as the hills." > > Gandhi > > > ___ 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
Re: FYI An Interesting Case
This is interesting to me because it is an example of the civil rights laws being used as a weapon against progressive workplace policies. Richard Epstein and more recently David Bernstein have argued that civil rights laws present a threat to free exercise rights when they unduly regulate religious employers. This case seems like the flip side of this argument, in which the civil rights laws get used as a sword by the religious against voluntary, progressive policies. NBO -- Original Message -- From: "Rick Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:51:44 -0400 >Rick Duncan has sent you an article from The Washington Times. > >Rick Duncan's comments: >--- >WORKER OPPOSED TO GAYS WINS SUIT >By Amy Fagan >THE WASHINGTON TIMES >--- >An AT&T Broadband employee who was fired after refusing to abide by company rules >that he said violated his religious beliefs about homosexuality has won a federal >court case. > >Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado > awarded Albert Buonanno of Denver $146,269 for lost salary, loss of 401(k) matching > contributions and compensation for emotional distress in a Friday ruling released > this week. > >The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination > against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated > Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for > nearly two years. > >Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January > 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to > fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including > sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a "certificate of > understanding" acknowledging that he agreed to the policy. > >The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious > beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship > on the company to do so. > >Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing > with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate > against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford > Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno. > >"This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. Whitehead > said. "It concerns the freedom of conscience the right of individuals to object to > something they believe is wrong, especially when it contradicts their religious > beliefs, whether it is war, abortion, homosexuality or a number of other issues." > >A spokesman for Comcast, which owns AT&T Broadband, said, the company "is > disappointed in the court's ruling," which they said appears to ignore attempts by > companies "to foster diversity and nondiscrimination in the workplace." > >The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is reviewing the case > and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask the court to reinstate him as > a quota specialist, instead seeking monetary compensation. He now works for Mental > Health Corporation of Denver as a counselor. > >The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to challenge > similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court challenges to the > "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, which he said often aims at > training workers to accept and value diversity, including homosexuality. > >"I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said. > >Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the company such > as granting him every Wednesday off for religious purposes, Mr. Whitehead said. > >"All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the homosexual > lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a sinful lifestyle," > said Mr. Whitehead. > >But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and they couldn't > show undue hardship would occur if they did. > >In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to > avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. > Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the la
Re: Lofton/State
I may have missed this in one of the other posts, but I received an email from outside this list that evidences the inclusion of such invocations of the Divine in constitutions of virtually every one of the fifty states. I can't tell from the source whether this reflects current, as well as historic provisions of these constitutions, but I imagine it would be easy to confirm. The list is below. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama,invoking the favor_and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God andto those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, gratefulto Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas,grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own formof government...California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,grateful to Almighty God for our freedom Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profoundreverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledgingwith gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, bynature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to thedictates of their consciences ..Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, gratefulto Almighty God for our constitutional liberty . establish this Constitution...Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying uponprotection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish thisConstitution...Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for DivineGuidance .. establish this Constitution.Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of t! he State of Idaho, grateful toAlmighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, gratefulto Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our formof government.Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to theSupreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling ourdependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings to establish thisConstitutionKansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to AlmightyGod for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution.Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth ofgrateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana,grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging withgrateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universein affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction.Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland,grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty...Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts,acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislatorof the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ...anddevoutly imploring His direction .Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom . establish this ConstitutionMinnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota,grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring toperpetuate its blessingsMississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profoundreverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for Hisgoodness . establish this Constitution .Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful toAlmighty God for the blessings of liberty. establish this ConstitutionNebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God forour freedom .. establish this ConstitutionNevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, gratefulto Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution...New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey,grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath
FYI An Interesting Case
Rick Duncan has sent you an article from The Washington Times. Rick Duncan's comments: --- WORKER OPPOSED TO GAYS WINS SUIT By Amy Fagan THE WASHINGTON TIMES --- An AT&T Broadband employee who was fired after refusing to abide by company rules that he said violated his religious beliefs about homosexuality has won a federal court case. Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado awarded Albert Buonanno of Denver $146,269 for lost salary, loss of 401(k) matching contributions and compensation for emotional distress in a Friday ruling released this week. The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for nearly two years. Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us," including sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a "certificate of understanding" acknowledging that he agreed to the policy. The Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of employees unless the employer can show it will create an undue hardship on the company to do so. Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno. "This issue is about more than an objection to homosexuality," Mr. Whitehead said. "It concerns the freedom of conscience the right of individuals to object to something they believe is wrong, especially when it contradicts their religious beliefs, whether it is war, abortion, homosexuality or a number of other issues." A spokesman for Comcast, which owns AT&T Broadband, said, the company "is disappointed in the court's ruling," which they said appears to ignore attempts by companies "to foster diversity and nondiscrimination in the workplace." The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said the company is reviewing the case and might appeal the ruling. Mr. Buonanno did not ask the court to reinstate him as a quota specialist, instead seeking monetary compensation. He now works for Mental Health Corporation of Denver as a counselor. The ruling could embolden other Christians or religious people to challenge similar policies, said Mr. Whitehead, who expects court challenges to the "sensitivity training" companies sometimes require, which he said often aims at training workers to accept and value diversity, including homosexuality. "I think Buonanno is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Whitehead said. Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the company such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious purposes, Mr. Whitehead said. "All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist Christian he sees as a sinful lifestyle," said Mr. Whitehead. But AT&T made "no attempt to even reasonably accommodate him," and they couldn't show undue hardship would occur if they did. In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous. --- This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm) For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com Copyright (c) 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. ___ 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: credit where credit is due
Actually, it was Mark Tushnet who coined the term "the lawyer as astrophysicist," I think in an article he wrote in the late '70s. I am pleased to join Jim Henderson in denouncing Supreme Court justices (and/or their clerks) who pretend to be historians, though we might pick different cases as the focus of our anger. sandy -Original Message- From: Michael MASINTER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Comments From Brian Leiter Isn't this just one more example of what Sandy has called the law professor as nuclear physicist -- the arrogance of assuming that because we are lawyers (or in this case a law student), we are for that reason masters of any discipline we find interesting at the moment? How likely is it that Nature or Science would publish an article or book review by a biologist seeking to elaborate flaws in the application by various courts of the Lemon test? Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Steven Jamar wrote: > It seems all in all that Leiter is mostly just giving Van Dyke too much > credit on one point - that Van Dyke knows the difference between an "a > priori" theory and a theory or perspective that does in fact underlie a > field - for good and sufficient reasons - "a posteriori". Or perhaps > Van Dyke was just being careless with words. Or maybe Van Dyke > intended to convey what Leiter (correctly) understands by "a prior". > > I suspect Van Dyke was just trying to make an argument that teaching > this stuff is constitutional - and that he did not fully understand the > import of his use of words. > > Can one make the argument that teaching it is constitutional without > damning methodological naturalism as a priori? That is, if MN indeed > is what was found rather than what is assumed, can one claim that > teaching ID is, if not equally valid, at least sufficiently valid to be > taught? > > I think not. And so the "a priori" terminology has to be intentional > and not a mere mistake or overstatement - or else it really is ignorant > without the depth to get or even make the point. > > Hmmm. How else can I waste time to avoid doing the tedious task on my > desk today? > > Fun as this philosophical stuff is, I wonder how much it really matters > for the practical arena of the law. Leiter is making the case that it > matters a lot. And I'm becoming convinced that he might be right - > despite my generally being very skeptical about the efficacy of such > philosophical arguments being ported into the law for such issues. > > Steve > > -- > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: > 202-806-8017 > Howard University School of Law fax: > 202-806-8428 > 2900 Van Ness Street NW > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Washington, DC 20008 > http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar > > "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as > old as the hills." > > Gandhi > > > ___ 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
Auto Response from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. ___ 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: Comments From Brian Leiter
in turn, perhaps Sandy will credit the late Mark DeWolf Howe for warning us about the dangers of trusting judges (particularly Supreme ones) who assume the role of historians. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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: Comments From Brian Leiter
Isn't this just one more example of what Sandy has called the law professor as nuclear physicist -- the arrogance of assuming that because we are lawyers (or in this case a law student), we are for that reason masters of any discipline we find interesting at the moment? How likely is it that Nature or Science would publish an article or book review by a biologist seeking to elaborate flaws in the application by various courts of the Lemon test? Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Steven Jamar wrote: > It seems all in all that Leiter is mostly just giving Van Dyke too much > credit on one point - that Van Dyke knows the difference between an "a > priori" theory and a theory or perspective that does in fact underlie a > field - for good and sufficient reasons - "a posteriori". Or perhaps > Van Dyke was just being careless with words. Or maybe Van Dyke > intended to convey what Leiter (correctly) understands by "a prior". > > I suspect Van Dyke was just trying to make an argument that teaching > this stuff is constitutional - and that he did not fully understand the > import of his use of words. > > Can one make the argument that teaching it is constitutional without > damning methodological naturalism as a priori? That is, if MN indeed > is what was found rather than what is assumed, can one claim that > teaching ID is, if not equally valid, at least sufficiently valid to be > taught? > > I think not. And so the "a priori" terminology has to be intentional > and not a mere mistake or overstatement - or else it really is ignorant > without the depth to get or even make the point. > > Hmmm. How else can I waste time to avoid doing the tedious task on my > desk today? > > Fun as this philosophical stuff is, I wonder how much it really matters > for the practical arena of the law. Leiter is making the case that it > matters a lot. And I'm becoming convinced that he might be right - > despite my generally being very skeptical about the efficacy of such > philosophical arguments being ported into the law for such issues. > > Steve > > -- > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: > 202-806-8017 > Howard University School of Law fax: > 202-806-8428 > 2900 Van Ness Street NW > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Washington, DC 20008 > http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar > > "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as > old as the hills." > > Gandhi > > > ___ 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: Comments From Brian Leiter
It seems all in all that Leiter is mostly just giving Van Dyke too much credit on one point - that Van Dyke knows the difference between an "a priori" theory and a theory or perspective that does in fact underlie a field - for good and sufficient reasons - "a posteriori". Or perhaps Van Dyke was just being careless with words. Or maybe Van Dyke intended to convey what Leiter (correctly) understands by "a prior". I suspect Van Dyke was just trying to make an argument that teaching this stuff is constitutional - and that he did not fully understand the import of his use of words. Can one make the argument that teaching it is constitutional without damning methodological naturalism as a priori? That is, if MN indeed is what was found rather than what is assumed, can one claim that teaching ID is, if not equally valid, at least sufficiently valid to be taught? I think not. And so the "a priori" terminology has to be intentional and not a mere mistake or overstatement - or else it really is ignorant without the depth to get or even make the point. Hmmm. How else can I waste time to avoid doing the tedious task on my desk today? Fun as this philosophical stuff is, I wonder how much it really matters for the practical arena of the law. Leiter is making the case that it matters a lot. And I'm becoming convinced that he might be right - despite my generally being very skeptical about the efficacy of such philosophical arguments being ported into the law for such issues. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills." Gandhi ___ 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: RE: Lofton/State
The Australian Constitution begins "WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established . . ." Interestingly enough, the inclusion of this acknowledgement of G-d directly led to the inclusion of a free exercise clause and establishment clause in the Australian Constitution -- even though Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. Religious minorities, led by Seventh Day Adventists, argued that the religious acknowledgment in the Preamble could be used by the national government to justify legislation on religious matters, such as Sunday closing laws. Religion clauses were added to the Constitution to negate that possibility. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 12:17 PM 4/7/2004 -0400, you wrote: To supplement Sandy's quotations from other nations' constitutions, here's the preamble to the Irish Constitution of 1937: "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution." [My personal view is that the "from Whom" clause is a better way of expressing what Tom Berg says "under God" expresses.] One matter of controversy in the drafting of the proposed "Constitution" for Europe has been whether its preamble should refer to God, with the drafters deciding against doing so. The controversy, I think, has arisen mostly among people who are nervous about adopting the proposal for other reasons (as well, perhaps). ___ 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
Comments From Brian Leiter
To All: My colleague Brian Leiter asked that I share with the listserve his comments on the philosophical mistakes in Lawrence VanDyke's posting to this listserve regarding the debate about Intelligent Design and methodological naturalism. You may find Leiter's comments here: http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/001072.html --Larry Sager ___ 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: RE: Lofton/State
To supplement Sandy's quotations from other nations' constitutions, here's the preamble to the Irish Constitution of 1937: "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution." [My personal view is that the "from Whom" clause is a better way of expressing what Tom Berg says "under God" expresses.] One matter of controversy in the drafting of the proposed "Constitution" for Europe has been whether its preamble should refer to God, with the drafters deciding against doing so. The controversy, I think, has arisen mostly among people who are nervous about adopting the proposal for other reasons (as well, perhaps). - Original Message - From: Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2004 12:05 pm Subject: Re: RE: Lofton/State > > Michael McConnell has asked about the "first sentence" of > Jefferson's Bill Establishing Religious Liberty: > > SECTION I. > Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their > own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their > minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and > manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it > altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to > influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil > incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and > meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of > our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not > to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty > power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason > alone."that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, > civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but > fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith > of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as > the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose > them on others, hath established and maintained false religions > over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to > compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation > of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and > tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that > teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the > comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular > pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he > feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from > the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an > approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional > incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction > of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our > religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or > geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy > the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being > called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or > renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him > injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common > with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends > also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant > to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and > emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; > that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such > temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in > their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil > government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil > magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to > restrain the profession or propagation of principles on > supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at > once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course > judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of > judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as > they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time > enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its > officers to interfe
Re: RE: Lofton/State
Michael McConnell has asked about the "first sentence" of Jefferson's Bill Establishing Religious Liberty: SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone."that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. I presume that the key language is "that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone." I find such sentiments compatible with my own political views, and I am glad for Jefferson's influence on the development of the American doctrine of church-state. That being said, I don't see that it is within the prerogative of the state to make any statements about the attributes or wishes of the "Almighty God," not least because whatever is said will undoubtedly be a controversial theological proposition. Now, as John Lofton has pointed out, the theory of the secular liberal state itself requires rejecting Pauline theology, so I concede the poin
Newdow Oral Argument Transcript
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-1624.pdf - Original Message - From: "Rick Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 3:19 PM Subject: Re: "under God" > Is the transcript of the oral arguments in Newdow on > line yet? Does anyone have a link? > > Cheers, Rick Duncan ___ 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
