The beginning of the end of religious freedom in Venezuela
Venezuela's President Chavez has announced that they will be expelling missionaries working with New Tribes Missions. I was afraid that he might use Pat Robertson's remarks as a justification for something like this. That, of course, doesn't make Chavez's action legitimate. It just gave him PR cover among the uneducated and uninformed. At any rate, there are two articles about this. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/141/53.0.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/142/32.0.html Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
I haven't heard this story in the news anywhere, but given the media's general distaste for anything evangelical, I'm not surprised. The sad thing is that it takes litigation (or the threat thereof) to compel universities to do the right thing. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/5.25.html Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Brad M Pardee wrote: I haven't heard this story in the news anywhere, but given the media's general distaste for anything evangelical, I'm not surprised. The sad thing is that it takes litigation (or the threat thereof) to compel universities to do the right thing. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/5.25.html I'm always baffled by cases like this. It's a private organization, regardless of whether it exists at a public university. Of course they have the right to determine the standards of their own membership. That's true of this group, it's true of the Augusta National golf club, and it's true of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club from the Little Rascals. Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 10/18/05 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Yes, of course, the private club has a right (although not a constitutional one, I'd argue) to exclude from membership any persons who are sexually active outside marriage (which is what the settlement apparently involves). The question at issue, however, is not membership, as such, but instead the group's eligibility to be recognized by the university, and to be given the public perqs that come with such recognition. ASU has decided, like most schools, that it will not afford such recognition and perqs to any groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation -- on the quite reasonable theory that ASU does not wish to facilitate, or be party to, any activities for which a percentage of its student body would be ineligible by virtue of their sexual orientation. According to the article, CLS has agreed that it will *not* discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation -- and thus that it will comply with ASU's nondiscrimination conditions that are a prerequisite to university recognition. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 10/18/05 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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. ---BeginMessage--- Brad M Pardee wrote: I haven't heard this story in the news anywhere, but given the media's general distaste for anything evangelical, I'm not surprised. The sad thing is that it takes litigation (or the threat thereof) to compel universities to do the right thing. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/5.25.html I'm always baffled by cases like this. It's a private organization, regardless of whether it exists at a public university. Of course they have the right to determine the standards of their own membership. That's true of this group, it's true of the Augusta National golf club, and it's true of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club from the Little Rascals. Ed Brayton ---End Message--- ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: New lawsuit against U Cal Berkeley
My apologies to Ed Brayton, whose earlier posts I regrettably failed to properly grasp; I quite erroneously focused solely on the NCSEWeb site, to which the Berkeley site links, and failed to focus -- as he correctly points out we should focus -- on the context. Nonetheless, it seems to me that even if we include the context, there is still a viable (as I've said before, hardly open-and-shut, but quite plausible) endorsement objection. Here's the material from the Berkeley site: Misconception: Evolution and religion are incompatible. Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE Web site [linking to the site on which various groups opine on the proper interpretation of Christianity and Judaism, and conclude that this proper interpretation is consistent with evolution]. It is indeed factually true that the view that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect -- most claims that include the word always are incorrect. Nonetheless, it seems to me that in context a reasonable person could quite properly read these paragraphs as not just demographic reports on religious attitudes but as endorsement of one particular interpretation of Christianity and Judaism. Note how the one provided example of a religious belief that contradicts evolution is six-literal-day Creationism, an example that I'm pretty sure most readers would see as a negative one. Nothing is said of what I understand to be the much larger groups who disagree with evolution on religious grounds but don't believe the world was created in six literal days. The rest of the paragraphs is devoted to what I suspect most reasonable readers would see as positive descriptions of those religious groups that do see their religions as consistent with evolution; and then there is a link that seems pretty clearly an endorsement -- not just an objective well, here's what some people say with no positive connotation -- of those religious beliefs. There can surely be objective discussions of religious views on evolution, which aren't likely to be seen as an endorsement of some such views, and aren't likely to be intended as an endorsement of some such views. But this doesn't seem to be it. Finally, imagine a Web page maintained by a government-run institution, and aimed at supporting some curriculum that teaches students to oppose euthanasia (a view that of course public schools are constitutionally free to teach, though I'm not sure that many indeed to teach it; this page says: Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly tolerate euthanasia (e.g., the belief that there's nothing wrong with killing); however, most religious groups do not support euthanasia. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that supporting a culture of life actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the medical community there are thousands of doctors who are devoutly religious and also reject euthanasia. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding euthanasia, see Voices for Life on the VFL Web site [linking to a site on which various groups opine on the proper interpretation of Christianity and Judaism, and conclude that this proper interpretation rejects euthanasia]. Is this an endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs (beliefs that Christianity and Judaism, as rightly interpreted, reject euthanasia), or just a non-endorsing objective summary of facts about religious belief? Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: New lawsuit against U Cal Berkeley
I wonder whether this analysis can be reconciled (even on the level of quite plausible) with Lynch and Pinette, and the reasonable-observer-who-knows-a-fair-amount-of-the-context, etc., test for endorsement. Or, is the test for endorsement more stringent when the view endorsed is secularist as against religious? Volokh, Eugene wrote: My apologies to Ed Brayton, whose earlier posts I regrettably failed to properly grasp; I quite erroneously focused solely on the NCSEWeb site, to which the Berkeley site links, and failed to focus -- as he correctly points out we should focus -- on the context. Nonetheless, it seems to me that even if we include the context, there is still a viable (as I've said before, hardly open-and-shut, but quite plausible) endorsement objection. Here's the material from the Berkeley site: Misconception: Evolution and religion are incompatible. Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE Web site [linking to the site on which various groups opine on the proper interpretation of Christianity and Judaism, and conclude that this proper interpretation is consistent with evolution]. It is indeed factually true that the view that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect -- most claims that include the word always are incorrect. Nonetheless, it seems to me that in context a reasonable person could quite properly read these paragraphs as not just demographic reports on religious attitudes but as endorsement of one particular interpretation of Christianity and Judaism. Note how the one provided example of a religious belief that contradicts evolution is six-literal-day Creationism, an example that I'm pretty sure most readers would see as a negative one. Nothing is said of what I understand to be the much larger groups who disagree with evolution on religious grounds but don't believe the world was created in six literal days. The rest of the paragraphs is devoted to what I suspect most reasonable readers would see as positive descriptions of those religious groups that do see their religions as consistent with evolution; and then there is a link that seems pretty clearly an endorsement -- not just an objective well, here's what some people say with no positive connotation -- of those religious beliefs. There can surely be objective discussions of religious views on evolution, which aren't likely to be seen as an endorsement of some such views, and aren't likely to be intended as an endorsement of some such views. But this doesn't seem to be it. Finally, imagine a Web page maintained by a government-run institution, and aimed at supporting some curriculum that teaches students to oppose euthanasia (a view that of course public schools are constitutionally free to teach, though I'm not sure that many indeed to teach it; this page says: Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly tolerate euthanasia (e.g., the belief that there's nothing wrong with killing); however, most religious groups do not support euthanasia. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that supporting a culture of life actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the medical community there are thousands of doctors who are devoutly religious and also reject euthanasia. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding euthanasia, see Voices for Life on the VFL Web site [linking to a site on which various groups opine on the proper interpretation of Christianity and Judaism, and conclude that this proper interpretation rejects euthanasia]. Is this an endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs (beliefs that Christianity and Judaism, as rightly interpreted, reject euthanasia), or just a non-endorsing objective summary of facts about religious belief? Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages
Re: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Marty Lederman wrote on 10/19/2005 11:34:46 AM: Yes, of course, the private club has a right (although not a constitutional one, I'd argue) to exclude from membership any persons who are sexually active outside marriage (which is what the settlement apparently involves). As I read the settlement description, though, they ARE able to exclude from membership any persons who are sexually active outside marriage. They have drawn a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and according to the lawyer for CLS, this is what we asked for in the lawsuit. The question at issue, however, is not membership, as such, but instead the group's eligibility to be recognized by the university, and to be given the public perqs that come with such recognition. I don't know what it's like at ASU, but at the University of Nebraska, where I work, official recognition isn't so much about public perq as much as it is about the ability to function on campus. If your group is not recognized, there are limitations on being able to advertise your group's activities, your group can't reserve a meeting room on campus, and so on and so forth. Those hardly qualify as perqs but rather the essentials of being able to function. ASU has decided, like most schools, that it will not afford such recognition and perqs to any groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation -- on the quite reasonable theory that ASU does not wish to facilitate, or be party to, any activities for which a percentage of its student body would be ineligible by virtue of their sexual orientation. Every campus has a percentage of its student body which would be ineligible for membership in some organizations. Are the College Republicans required to be allowed to join the College Democrats and serve in leadership? Is a campus pro-life group required to accept members who are actively involved in preserving the legal right to an abortion? Is an organization of Jewish students required to accept members who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.? Of course not. So why should the Christian organizations be the only organizations that are forced to accept members who don't subscribe to the group's beliefs? Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Perhaps I missed something, but it seems to me that ASU is in fact discriminating against a group because of its religious practice. There is, after all, a free exercise clause in the constitution and not a free love clause. (You ex-hippies may think otherwise, of course). It seems to me that if a student group of the American Cancer Association forbade membership to those who smoked cigarrettes (including smokers for religious reasons) that it would be wrong for ASU to discriminate against such a group because it happen to exclude religious smokers. After all, the CLS prohibition is against all non-marital sex, heterosexual or homosexual. This is part of a long and important moral tradition. It seems to me that ASU, by excluding such a group, is in fact making a judgment about the rationality of such a tradition. For all the talk about diversity, these sorts of requirements in fact result in a sort of universal conformity in which all groups must accept the same practices and moral traditions but just look different. Cosmetic diversity is not real diversity. Frank On Wednesday, October 19, 2005, at 11:36AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, of course, the private club has a right (although not a constitutional one, I'd argue) to exclude from membership any persons who are sexually active outside marriage (which is what the settlement apparently involves). The question at issue, however, is not membership, as such, but instead the group's eligibility to be recognized by the university, and to be given the public perqs that come with such recognition. ASU has decided, like most schools, that it will not afford such recognition and perqs to any groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation -- on the quite reasonable theory that ASU does not wish to facilitate, or be party to, any activities for which a percentage of its student body would be ineligible by virtue of their sexual orientation. According to the article, CLS has agreed that it will *not* discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation -- and thus that it will comply with ASU's nondiscrimination conditions that are a prerequisite to university recognition. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 10/18/05 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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. Original Attached___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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. -- Francis J. Beckwith, MJS, PhD Associate Professor of Church-State Studies Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies, Baylor University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://francisbeckwith.com Brad M Pardee wrote: I haven't heard this story in the news anywhere, but given the media's general distaste for anything evangelical, I'm not surprised. The sad thing is that it takes litigation (or the threat thereof) to compel universities to do the right thing. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/5.25.html I'm always baffled by cases like this. It's a private organization, regardless of whether it exists at a public university. Of course they have the right to determine the standards of their own membership. That's true of this group, it's true of the Augusta National golf club, and it's true of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club from the Little Rascals. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: New lawsuit against U Cal Berkeley
1) It's not clear what test would apply when the view endorsement is really secularist. The Court has at times said that expressing disapproval of religion is just as forbidden as expressing endorsement, but it hasn't ruled on this. I agree, though, that it's unlikely to adopt a more stringent test as to secularist views, and that it shouldn't apply such a more stringent test. 2) As I see it, the strongest Establishment Clause challenge here is *not* that UC Berkeley is endorsing a secularist perspective -- rather, that it's endorsing a certain interpretation of Christianity and Judaism (as being consistent with evolution) over rival interpretations of Christianity and Judaism. That would be an endorsement of a religious view, not a secularist one. 3) An observer in Pinette who knew the context would have concluded that no government agency was endorsing Christianity, since it was the Klan that put up the cross -- with no special preference from the government -- and not the government. The dissent's concern there was that many observers would not know the facts, and would draw an incorrect inference. Here, it seems to me that an observer who knew the context might well conclude that UC Berkeley, or at least a department or institute within it, was indeed endorsing one particular interpretation of Christianity and Judaism. There's nothing in the context, it seems to me, that would undermine the most plausible interpretation of the text, which is that the authors of the site are trying to suggest that the pro-evolution interpretation of those religions is the better one (and not just one possible one, or even the most popular one). 4) Lynch, of course, is a tougher matter; my sense is that it's actually not consistent, despite the talking wishing well, with the endorsement test as set forth in Allegheny. Whether it survives Allegheny, and what its survival means for other cases, is anyone's guess. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:10 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: New lawsuit against U Cal Berkeley I wonder whether this analysis can be reconciled (even on the level of quite plausible) with Lynch and Pinette, and the reasonable-observer-who-knows-a-fair-amount-of-the-context, etc., test for endorsement. Or, is the test for endorsement more stringent when the view endorsed is secularist as against religious? Volokh, Eugene wrote: My apologies to Ed Brayton, whose earlier posts I regrettably failed to properly grasp; I quite erroneously focused solely on the NCSEWeb site, to which the Berkeley site links, and failed to focus -- as he correctly points out we should focus -- on the context. Nonetheless, it seems to me that even if we include the context, there is still a viable (as I've said before, hardly open-and-shut, but quite plausible) endorsement objection. Here's the material from the Berkeley site: Misconception: Evolution and religion are incompatible. Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE Web site [linking to the site on which various groups opine on the proper interpretation of Christianity and Judaism, and conclude that this proper interpretation is consistent with evolution]. It is indeed factually true that the view that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect -- most claims that include the word always are incorrect. Nonetheless, it seems to me that in context a reasonable person could quite properly read these paragraphs as not just demographic reports on religious attitudes but as endorsement of one particular interpretation of Christianity and Judaism. Note how the one provided example of a religious belief that contradicts evolution is six-literal-day Creationism, an example that I'm pretty sure most readers would see as a
Re: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
On Oct 19, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: Every campus has a percentage of its student body which would be ineligible for membership in some organizations. Are the College Republicans required to be allowed to join the College Democrats and serve in leadership? Is a campus pro-life group required to accept members who are actively involved in preserving the legal right to an abortion? Is an organization of Jewish students required to accept members who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.? Of course not. So why should the Christian organizations be the only organizations that are forced to accept members who don't subscribe to the group's beliefs? Brad___ Not so. All organizations are limited on what grounds they can exclude members. Why do those who cry "treat us the same as other groups" now demand an exception? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. "William Blake ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
No exception is needed. Simply a statement applying to all groups saying that groups are not required to accept members who do not subscribe to the beliefs central to the mission of the group. That would not only protect the ability of campus religious groups to be faithful to the tenets of their faith, but it also protects non-religious groups, such as ensuring that College Republicans (or Democrats) are, in fact, Republicans (or Democrats). Basic freedom of association at the very least, not to mention freedom of religion for the religious student organizations. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 04:44:14 PM: On Oct 19, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: Every campus has a percentage of its student body which would be ineligible for membership in some organizations. Are the College Republicans required to be allowed to join the College Democrats and serve in leadership? Is a campus pro-life group required to accept members who are actively involved in preserving the legal right to an abortion? Is an organization of Jewish students required to accept members who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.? Of course not. So why should the Christian organizations be the only organizations that are forced to accept members who don't subscribe to the group's beliefs? Not so. All organizations are limited on what grounds they can exclude members. Why do those who cry treat us the same as other groups now demand an exception?___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
A generally applicable law or policy applies generally. So saith the Supreme Court, or so I thought.You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, even if you want to form a white supremacist group. Or if your religion says that you should as a central belief. Or that it says you should exclude women from any association with men outside the bedroom. Or whatever.Now you want an exception from the general rule. That is an exception. Not all central tenets of all groups need to be accommodated. Including religious ones.SteveOn Oct 19, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:No exception is needed. Simply a statement applying to all groups saying that groups are not required to accept members who do not subscribe to the beliefs central to the mission of the group. That would not only protect the ability of campus religious groups to be faithful to the tenets of their faith, but it also protects non-religious groups, such as ensuring that College Republicans (or Democrats) are, in fact, Republicans (or Democrats). Basic freedom of association at the very least, not to mention freedom of religion for the religious student organizations. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 04:44:14 PM: On Oct 19, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: Every campus has a percentage of its student body which would beineligible for membership in some organizations. Are the CollegeRepublicans required to be allowed to join the College Democrats and serve in leadership? Is a campus pro-life group required to acceptmembers who are actively involved in preserving the legal right toan abortion? Is an organization of Jewish students required toaccept members who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.? Of course not. So why should the Christian organizations be the onlyorganizations that are forced to accept members who don't subscribeto the group's beliefs? Not so. All organizations are limited on what grounds they can exclude members. Why do those who cry "treat us the same as other groups" now demand an exception?___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"I care not what subject is taught if only it be taught well."Thomas H. Huxley ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Apples and oranges. Race and gender are not behaviors. The CLS clearly said that they did not seek to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation but rather on the basis of their sexual behavior, regardless of orientation. What you describe is a situation where a Christian group is prohibited from living out its faith unless their faith's tenets of what constitutes godly behavior are approved of by the campus administration. And comparing the belief that sexual behavior belongs solely between a husband and wife to white supremacism sets the stage for saying that no Christian group can require godly behavior because others might define godly behavior differently. So much for free exercise. If your reference to generally appicable laws is referring to Employment Division v. Smith, then that would explain our disagreement. I believe that the Supreme Court gutted the free exercise clause in Smith and reduced it to anti-discrimination protection, and that does not bode well for religious freedom. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 05:48:36 PM: A generally applicable law or policy applies generally. So saith the Supreme Court, or so I thought. You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, even if you want to form a white supremacist group. Or if your religion says that you should as a central belief. Or that it says you should exclude women from any association with men outside the bedroom. Or whatever. Now you want an exception from the general rule. That is an exception. Not all central tenets of all groups need to be accommodated. Including religious ones. Steve___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Behavior is less protected than beliefs. The group can believe whatever it wants to believe, but cannot exclude homosexuals or bisexuals by behavioral proxy even if their religious belief says to do so. Or if they choose to so exclude them, then they cannot expect the government to support them if the government has a policy of non-discrimination against homosexuals.As far as the slippery slope argument -- never been a fan of that one. The question is not whether some undefined "others" would define godly behavior differently from a particular sect, but whether the state's definition of the limits of exclusion on the basis of status and behavior would apply to particular sects or whether they get an exception to the generally applicable neutral rule.I am no fan of Smith, but it is the law still, I think.On Oct 19, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:Apples and oranges. Race and gender are not behaviors. The CLS clearly said that they did not seek to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation but rather on the basis of their sexual behavior, regardless of orientation. What you describe is a situation where a Christian group is prohibited from living out its faith unless their faith's tenets of what constitutes godly behavior are approved of by the campus administration. And comparing the belief that sexual behavior belongs solely between a husband and wife to white supremacism sets the stage for saying that no Christian group can require godly behavior because others might define godly behavior differently. So much for free exercise. If your reference to generally appicable laws is referring to Employment Division v. Smith, then that would explain our disagreement. I believe that the Supreme Court gutted the free exercise clause in Smith and reduced it to anti-discrimination protection, and that does not bode well for religious freedom. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 05:48:36 PM: A generally applicable law or policy applies generally. So saith the Supreme Court, or so I thought.You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, even if you want to form a white supremacist group. Or if your religion says that you should as a central belief. Or that it says you should exclude women from any association with men outside the bedroom. Or whatever.Now you want an exception from the general rule. That is an exception. Not all central tenets of all groups need to be accommodated. Including religious ones.Steve___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
This issue comes up repeatedly on the list. Viewpoint discrimination is the least permissible form of speech regulation by the state. Campus groups are expressive associations. When the state university says that groups that hold certain beliefs can form expressive associations but that others cannot, the state generally is engaging in viewpoint discrimination. To deny a group the ability to choose its leaders (and perhaps its members) on the basis of their beliefs is to deny a group the ability to form an expressive association. That is true whether those beliefs have to with environmentalism, feminism, or traditional Christianity. Enforcement of antidiscrimination policies that effectively prevent formation of religious groups (by prohibiting them from limiting leadership positions, and perhaps membership, to those who sincerely hold the same religious beliefs) is thus almost always a violation of free speech rights. Conduct - such as refraining from sexual relations outside marriage - is a test of sincerity of belief, though not of course a perfect indicator of belief. My guess is that the CLS group happily would admit as a member a gay Christian who sincerely agreed with its religious belief that same sex sexual conduct is wrong, even if that person from time to time failed to live up to that belief. Similarly, a group devoted to racial harmony would likely admit to membership someone who sincerely believed in its ideals, even if the person from time to time had difficulty living up to those ideals. But perhaps each group should be permitted to apply its own standard for sincere belief. Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith does not validate viewpoint discrimination against religious views. Note that Smith was decided in 1990, and that Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club (both prohibiting such viewpoint discrimination) were decided in 1993 and 2001, respectively. Consider also the Christian publication that the Court in Rosenberger held could not be denied funding by Univ. of Virginia on an equal basis with secular student publications. How to get around Rosenberger? Deny student groups the right to choose leaders (or even members) based on religious beliefs; then no Christian student group can exist to seek funding for a Christian student publication! No, no, no. Preventing formation of groups that have a particular religious viewpoint that they wish to express is at least as clear a violation of free speech rights as is the discrimination against their _expression_ that is impermissible per Rosenberger. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Steven Jamar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 4:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU Behavior is less protected than beliefs. The group can believe whatever it wants to believe, but cannot exclude homosexuals or bisexuals by behavioral proxy even if their religious belief says to do so. Or if they choose to so exclude them, then they cannot expect the government to support them if the government has a policy of non-discrimination against homosexuals. As far as the slippery slope argument -- never been a fan of that one. The question is not whether some undefined others would define godly behavior differently from a particular sect, but whether the state's definition of the limits of exclusion on the basis of status and behavior would apply to particular sects or whether they get an exception to the generally applicable neutral rule. I am no fan of Smith, but it is the law still, I think. On Oct 19, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: Apples and oranges. Race and gender are not behaviors. The CLS clearly said that they did not seek to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation but rather on the basis of their sexual behavior, regardless of orientation. What you describe is a situation where a Christian group is prohibited from living out its faith unless their faith's tenets of what constitutes godly behavior are approved of by the campus administration. And comparing the belief that sexual behavior belongs solely between a husband and wife to white supremacism sets the stage for saying that no Christian group can require godly behavior because others might define godly behavior differently. So much for free exercise. If your reference to generally appicable laws is referring to Employment Division v. Smith, then that would explain our disagreement. I believe that the Supreme Court gutted the free exercise clause in Smith and reduced it to anti-discrimination protection, and that does not bode well for religious freedom. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 05:48:36 PM: A generally applicable law or policy applies generally. So saith the Supreme Court, or so I thought. You cannot discriminate on the basis of
Re: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
I'm no fan of Smith or Rosenberger. And the field is problematic, to put it mildly.But, why must the state fund an organization dedicated to violating its lawful rules? Not just speaking about them or believing them to be wrong, but violating them in conduct?The discrimination is not based on belief, but on action. They are excluding people on a basis the state has said is improper if the group wants state benefits.It does not stop the group from existing. It does not stop anyone from believing as they wish. But where is the constitutional requirement that the group get the money from the state?As a matter of policy at the school, I would want to allow greater latitude for such organizations, but that would be a matter of policy as adopted by the school, not a matter of Constitutional restrictions. A matter of accommodation by policy, not by constitutional requirement. The problem isn't with beliefs in the abstract or beliefs in something that is a lawful basis for discrimination, but rather with actions based on beliefs where those actions violate the policies.The groups are not being denied the right to form or to associate or to speak. They are being denied state benefits because they are violating a constitutional law.If the rule is the other way, where does it end? What distinguishes discriminating against people with a certain status of homosexuality from discriminating against people of another status like race or gender once the state has decided that that form of discrimination is unlawful? If we allow the one, how can we not allow the KKK to be a recognized religious organization that excludes Jews, Catholics, and Blacks?I am serious. How do you make that case?Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. "William Blake ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
