Court DENIES SG Application for Stay of Hoasca Tea Injunction!
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2004_12_05_SCOTUSblog.cfm#110270595545446896 2:06 PM | Lyle Denniston Link to this Post Tea injunction stands The Supreme Court on Friday denied the Justice Department's request to allow it to enforce a ban on religious use of a hallucinogenic substance, hoasca tea, during the pendency of the government's petition challenging a court's decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act likely requires a religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act. A federal judge in New Mexico, relying upon RFRA, has granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the CSA as to a religious group's use of the tea.Here is the Court's order Friday in Ashcroft v. O Centro Espirita, 04A469:"The application for a stay of injunction or, in the alternative, to recall and stay the mandate presented to Justice Breyer and by him referred to the Court is denied. The temporary stay entered December 1, 2004, is vacated."There was no indication of any dissent.[Addendum from Marty Lederman: What this means, as a practical matter, is that the members of the UDV will be able to use hoasca in religious rituals, notwithstanding the Controlled Substances Act, for an extended period -- almost certainly the most significant RFRA exemption to federal law in the history of that statute. Assuming the SG petitions for certiorari on the preliminary injunction (rather than going back to district court for a trial on the merits), and further assuming that the Court grants the petition and rules for the Government, it will likely be at least a year until the Court overturns the injunction. And by the time the Court hears arguments in the case, presumably there will be some evidence concerning whether the RFRA exemption has caused the harms -- in terms of health risks, diversion to improper (non-RFRA-exempted) use, and damage to U.S. efforts in the international narcotics-interdiction campaign -- that the government has articulated. (Of course, if the Government does not return to the district court, it might be very difficult to figure out a way to include in the record of the case any intervening evidence of the experience under the RFRA exemption.)] ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:44:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that the only relevant question in terms of this lawsuit is whether any of those assignments are properly given by this teacher to his students, not whether they might hypothetically be okay in a different set of circumstances. I say they clearly are not. Well, why? I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. The only way that such dogmatic rejections of the propriety of Mr. Williams' easter assignment could be justified is if noassignmentinvolving thereading of the Easter story from the Bible may be made in a public school, if nowriting assignment ever may requirea student to "respond" to themes such as sacrifice, resurrection, hope, new life.I realize that I am asking persons who challenge the propriety of this assignment sheet to offer some demonstration of its unconstitutionality beyond the bare assertion of it; and I realize that such calls for proof often are charged by others as a dodge for real analysis. But I am truly perplexed. This assignment sheet does not, to my reading of it, do anything other that provide the means for a student to learn about these subjects. 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 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In California 5th grade is US history. 6th grade is from the beginning of history to the fall of Rome. 7th grade goes on from the fall of Rome. Some discussion of Islam is appropriate for 7th grade. My wife teaches 6th grade. For the Egypt part, they mummify chicken legs. One year, those students and parents who were willing, went to see Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Ed Brayton wrote: Steven Jamar wrote: Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and presentation. Mr. Williams teaches 5th grade. Ed Brayton ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
I like Prof. Levinson's hypo. Here's another one: Under Islam, Jesus is believed to have been born of the Virgin Mary and is considered a holy prophet. Read the Koran and other Islamic religion sources and contrast this view to the Christian view of Jesus as Messiah. On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 02:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: Imagine the following assignment by a Jewish teacher to his class in World History two weeks before Easter (when, it so happens, the syllabus for the course is treating the Holocaust): The account of Jesus's trial and subsequent punishment as set out in the Christian Gospels is viewed by many historians and theologians as a central source of anti-Semitism and the cause of persecution and, indeed, massacre, of Jews throughout the ages. Please read the various accounts of Jesus's trial in the four Gospels and indicate why someone might view them as anti-Semitic. (Is there significant variation among the Gospels in this regard?) Would anyone on this list who supports Mr. Williams have any problems with this assignment? -- 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 Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, Therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; Therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite a virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own; Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. Reinhold Neibuhr ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:16:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation.
I disagree that Mr. Williams' assignment sheet, if authentic, is a "well crafted" history lesson for reasons already explicated in detail by others, particularly Ed Brayton. I also agree with all those who have stated that if the assignment sheet is authentic, Mr. Williams does not have much of a case.
But, the hypothetical issue Marty Lederman framed at the beginning of the week ("not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must") is a much closer question.
And, I agree with Jim Henderson that Mr. Williams' purported assignments to learn about Easter are similar to the assignments to learn about Islam used by the Byron Union School District that were upheld last year by a federal judge in the Northern District of California and are now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See, for example, the amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit from the Californian School Boards And National School Boards Associations in pdf format at:
http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?TRACKID=VID=50CID=470DID=34136
And, finally, I also agree with Jim Henderson that there is nothing per se unconstitutional about being a bad history teacher, about teaching only one side of a historical controversy, or even about teaching bogus history. If Mr. Williams were teaching only the viewpoint that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union or if Mr. Williams were using bogus evidence to deny the Holocaust, he'd be a bad teacher, but there's no Establishment Clause issue.
The subject about which Mr. Williams is teaching, however, is the historical relationship between the US government and religion ("the role of religion at the nation's founding" and "the reasons for the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment" according to paragraph 41 of his complaint), making the case a kind of "bank shot" endorsement case. Mr. Williams isn't so much directly endorsing religion as a state agent today (unless such facts come out), but, he is using one-sided and possibly bogus evidence to teach that the US government endorsed Christianity in the past. Williams' purported assignment sheet uses dubious sources to support the contentions that the US Constitution is "only for a moral and religious people" and the US government was "founded on Christian principles." I expect the "excerpted" sources listed in paragraph 40 of Williams' complaint will turn out to be similarly dubious and tendentious.
A more balanced debate on the subject could well be a valid history lesson in a public school, though it may be overly ambitious for the fifth grade. The study of the claim that our law is based on Christian principles could include Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in which he argues "from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." See this address:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html
Or, a balanced approach could include many other statements Jefferson made about Christianity like "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." See this address:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html
Maybe Williams' distribution of GW Bush's National Prayer Day proclamation could be balanced with Madison's argument that such presidential proclamations should be unconstitutional (or maybe just contrast Madison's argument against his own religious proclamations as president). See this address:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_livingston.html
Or, instead of tendentious excerpts, Williams could just supply all the documents available at this address:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html
Thus, though I agree with Jim Henderson that being a bad history teacher creates no constitutional issue "unless some standard can be identified that embodies the concerns of the First Amendment," when the subject being taught is the relationship between the US government and religion, Williams' one-sided, bogus approach does create just
The Easter Assignment
I have been given reason to believe that the Easter assignment was not used with the class -- although similar assignments used to teach about other religions and the holidays associated with them were both approved and used. It appears that Mr. Williams based his Easter assignment on the earlier assignments related to other religions and their holidays and that, upon submission, he was told he could not use it. 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 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 4:50:07 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure that I understand the point here. Is it that it is acceptable for public school teachers to teach religious beliefs such as the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact? Or is it that it is too burdensome for teachers to be "saddled" with the responsibility of telling their students when a class discusses religion that "In the United States, we live under a constitutional system committed to religious liberty. Americans believe in many different religious faiths and the tenets of these faiths are often inconsistent with each other. Adherence to religious beliefs is a matter left to individuals and faith communities to decide for themselves. That is why the government and the public schools do not tell people what religion, if any, they should follow. When we study religion in this class, we are studying what different people believe; not what people should believe. Our government and our public schools have no authority to declare religious truth." Alan Brownstein Just making a quick check, I can't find that the assignment on Easter meets any of the national standards urged under the various federal acts, nor does it meet any of the standards we have in Texas. Is there any argument that the assignment meets any state's standards? Can we see the standards? Ed Darrell Dallas ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 11:18:35 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (about the assignment to study Easter): *John Adams wrote, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." He also wrote a paper called, "American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity." Write a one page report on why he felt so strongly that this nation should be founded on Christian principles and quote from primary sources. What would be the reaction of the teacher were a student to turn in Adams' denial of the religious view the teacher assumes here, in Adams' exchanges with Jefferson? Did any student do that? Ed Darrell Dallas ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Wouldn't all of this balancing have to be prediated on showing that Jefferson and (sometimes) Madison are representative of the founders' views? This is not at all obvious, especially on the question of religion. As judges are notoriously bad historians, I'm not sure that this is such an easy case (or, perhaps that quality is what might make it easy for them). Richard Dougherty -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:39:15 EST In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:16:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. I disagree that Mr. Williams' assignment sheet, if authentic, is a well crafted history lesson for reasons already explicated in detail by others, particularly Ed Brayton. I also agree with all those who have stated that if the assignment sheet is authentic, Mr. Williams does not have much of a case. But, the hypothetical issue Marty Lederman framed at the beginning of the week (not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must) is a much closer question. And, I agree with Jim Henderson that Mr. Williams' purported assignments to learn about Easter are similar to the assignments to learn about Islam used by the Byron Union School District that were upheld last year by a federal judge in the Northern District of California and are now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See, for example, the amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit from the Californian School Boards And National School Boards Associations in pdf format at: http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?TRACKID=VID=50CID=470DID=34136 And, finally, I also agree with Jim Henderson that there is nothing per se unconstitutional about being a bad history teacher, about teaching only one side of a historical controversy, or even about teaching bogus history. If Mr. Williams were teaching only the viewpoint that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union or if Mr. Williams were using bogus evidence to deny the Holocaust, he'd be a bad teacher, but there's no Establishment Clause issue. The subject about which Mr. Williams is teaching, however, is the historical relationship between the US government and religion (the role of religion at the nation's founding and the reasons for the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment according to paragraph 41 of his complaint), making the case a kind of bank shot endorsement case. Mr. Williams isn't so much directly endorsing religion as a state agent today (unless such facts come out), but, he is using one-sided and possibly bogus evidence to teach that the US government endorsed Christianity in the past. Williams' purported assignment sheet uses dubious sources to support the contentions that the US Constitution is only for a moral and religious people and the US government was founded on Christian principles. I expect the excerpted sources listed in paragraph 40 of Williams' complaint will turn out to be similarly dubious and tendentious. A more balanced debate on the subject could well be a valid history lesson in a public school, though it may be overly ambitious for the fifth grade. The study of the claim that our law is based on Christian principles could include Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in which he argues from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. See this address: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html Or, a balanced approach could include many other statements Jefferson made about Christianity like And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. See this address: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html Maybe Williams' distribution of GW Bush's National Prayer Day proclamation could be balanced with Madison's argument that such presidential proclamations should be unconstitutional (or maybe just contrast Madison's argument against his own religious
