Re: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder
Larry Darby wrote: Thank you to all who have expressed an interest in restoring good government to Alabama - and the United States of America, for Americans for a change! I am reminded of an old Albert Brooks comedy bit from the early 70s where he says that radio disc jockeys are endowed with the ability to turn anything negative into a compliment, totally oblivious to the reality that people are in fact insulting them: You suck Thank you, you're beautiful! I said you suck I said thanks! 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: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder
I wonder if Mr. Darby's anti-Semitic self-promotion really belongs on this list serve? Larry Darby wrote: Thank you to all who have expressed an interest in restoring good government to Alabama - and the United States of America, for Americans for a change! Those persons who want to stay abreast of current events dealing with our Zionist-Occupied Government and other current events regarding the global endeavors of traditional enemies of Free Speech, I am proprietor of the Atheist Daily News, the publication of record for the community of reason. A year's subscription is only $52.00 and may be mailed to Atheist Daily News, P O Box 3722, Montgomery, AL 36109. I am no longer an officer of the Atheist Law Center, Inc. but it, too, has a daily publication, the Atheist Daily Briefing. Those wishing to subscribe to it may do so by going to this link: http://www.atheistlaw.org/news-subscribe.cfm. It is edited by John Nielsen of Jackson, Mississippi. There is little overlap of stories covered. Some people get both publications. You may also make a tax deductible contribution to the Center by clicking on the Donate icon at the top of the web page. Thank you all for your interest and continued support for the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government (not the misguided separation of church and state response to politically correct preferentialism or government accommodation of non-Christian religion). Larry Darby -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:23 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder Eugene, thanks for the publicity! My campaign address is: Larry Darby for Attorney General P O Box 3722 Montgomery, AL 36109 There is no limit on contributions from individuals. Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder Since people on this list specialize in the law of government and religion, they might be interested in the activities of the Atheist Legal Center, and might even be inclined to work together with them on some matters. (I would have been one such, on certain subjects.) Given this, I thought I'd pass along an item I posted about the Atheist Legal Center's former president and Alabama Attorney General candidate Larry Darby -- who, by coincidence, has also participated on this list. Mr. Darby has stepped down as the head of the Center in order to run for AG, so perhaps his replacement does not share the views I describe below. On the other hand, his having been involved in the group, and the Center's having hosted David Irving while Mr. Darby was president, makes me concerned about the group more broadly. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_11-2005_12_17.shtml#113441423 9 [Eugene Volokh, December 12, 2005 at 2:03pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks Leading Atheist Legal Activist and Candidate for Alabama Attorney General Has Some Rather Interesting Views About Jews, Zionism, and the Holocaust: Larry Darby is apparently a pretty prominent atheist legal activist. He was the president of the Atheist Legal Center (though he has since stepped down to run for public office); filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments cases on behalf of various atheist groups and also on behalf of Scouting for All; ran the Alabama chapter of American Atheists; got the Atheist of the Year award from American Atheists; has been quoted in various newspapers, mostly in Alabama but also elsewhere; and has appeared on various television programs in connection with his opposition to Judge Roy Moore's actions related to the Ten Commandments. Darby is now running in the June 2006 Democratic primary for Alabama Attorney General - I suspect that he has little chance of winning, but I take it that he'll want to use the race as a platform for expressing his various views, which include juvenile law reform and decriminalization of marijuana. Mr. Darby also (1) apparently wrote that David Duke is right on with the problem of Zionism and the Zionist-Occupied Government we live under, (2) seems quite interested in whether media representatives who contact him about such matters are Jewish, and (3) was substantially involved in organizing a speech by noted Holocaust denier David Irving. I first heard about this when an acquaintance of mine e-mailed me an exchange that included Mr. Darby's Zionist-Occupied Government quote. I then e-mailed Mr. Darby to verify the quote. (I had and still have no reason to question my correspondent's veracity, but I thought that checking would be a good idea.) The closest Mr. Darby came to denying the accuracy of the
Re: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder
I second Paul's concern. Frank On 12/13/05 7:37 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if Mr. Darby's anti-Semitic self-promotion really belongs on this list serve? Larry Darby wrote: Thank you to all who have expressed an interest in restoring good government to Alabama - and the United States of America, for Americans for a change! Those persons who want to stay abreast of current events dealing with our Zionist-Occupied Government and other current events regarding the global endeavors of traditional enemies of Free Speech, I am proprietor of the Atheist Daily News, the publication of record for the community of reason. A year's subscription is only $52.00 and may be mailed to Atheist Daily News, P O Box 3722, Montgomery, AL 36109. I am no longer an officer of the Atheist Law Center, Inc. but it, too, has a daily publication, the Atheist Daily Briefing. Those wishing to subscribe to it may do so by going to this link: http://www.atheistlaw.org/news-subscribe.cfm. It is edited by John Nielsen of Jackson, Mississippi. There is little overlap of stories covered. Some people get both publications. You may also make a tax deductible contribution to the Center by clicking on the Donate icon at the top of the web page. Thank you all for your interest and continued support for the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government (not the misguided separation of church and state response to politically correct preferentialism or government accommodation of non-Christian religion). Larry Darby -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:23 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder Eugene, thanks for the publicity! My campaign address is: Larry Darby for Attorney General P O Box 3722 Montgomery, AL 36109 There is no limit on contributions from individuals. Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder Since people on this list specialize in the law of government and religion, they might be interested in the activities of the Atheist Legal Center, and might even be inclined to work together with them on some matters. (I would have been one such, on certain subjects.) Given this, I thought I'd pass along an item I posted about the Atheist Legal Center's former president and Alabama Attorney General candidate Larry Darby -- who, by coincidence, has also participated on this list. Mr. Darby has stepped down as the head of the Center in order to run for AG, so perhaps his replacement does not share the views I describe below. On the other hand, his having been involved in the group, and the Center's having hosted David Irving while Mr. Darby was president, makes me concerned about the group more broadly. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_11-2005_12_17.shtml#113441423 9 [Eugene Volokh, December 12, 2005 at 2:03pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks Leading Atheist Legal Activist and Candidate for Alabama Attorney General Has Some Rather Interesting Views About Jews, Zionism, and the Holocaust: Larry Darby is apparently a pretty prominent atheist legal activist. He was the president of the Atheist Legal Center (though he has since stepped down to run for public office); filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments cases on behalf of various atheist groups and also on behalf of Scouting for All; ran the Alabama chapter of American Atheists; got the Atheist of the Year award from American Atheists; has been quoted in various newspapers, mostly in Alabama but also elsewhere; and has appeared on various television programs in connection with his opposition to Judge Roy Moore's actions related to the Ten Commandments. Darby is now running in the June 2006 Democratic primary for Alabama Attorney General - I suspect that he has little chance of winning, but I take it that he'll want to use the race as a platform for expressing his various views, which include juvenile law reform and decriminalization of marijuana. Mr. Darby also (1) apparently wrote that David Duke is right on with the problem of Zionism and the Zionist-Occupied Government we live under, (2) seems quite interested in whether media representatives who contact him about such matters are Jewish, and (3) was substantially involved in organizing a speech by noted Holocaust denier David Irving. I first heard about this when an acquaintance of mine e-mailed me an exchange that included Mr. Darby's Zionist-Occupied Government quote. I then e-mailed Mr. Darby to verify the
Re: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder
Paul's query again raisesthe question of the List's purposes. My own view is that phrases like "Zionist-Occupied Government" and, in Paul's words,the speaker's "anti-Semitic self-promotion" do not belong on this List. I recognizeand admire Eugene's typical reluctance to censoremails posted to the List, but I do not see how such expressions have anything to do with a scholarly exploration of religion and government. That said, perhaps censoring the speech gives the speaker a credibility he certainlylacks. BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Zionist-Occupied Government
I confess to thinking zionist-occupied government no more out of bounds than Protestant empire or claims that America is a Christian nation. I confess to think the later two more accurate, but do not think the first the sort of hate speech that ought to ba banned from the list. Mark A. Graber, Zionist, presently out of power. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/05 9:38 AM Paul's query again raises the question of the List's purposes. My own view is that phrases like Zionist-Occupied Government and, in Paul's words, the speaker's anti-Semitic self-promotion do not belong on this List. I recognize and admire Eugene's typical reluctance to censor emails posted to the List, but I do not see how such expressions have anything to do with a scholarly exploration of religion and government. That said, perhaps censoring the speech gives the speaker a credibility he certainly lacks. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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.
Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
I wonder if Mr. Darby's effort is not redundant. Do we not already have the ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national government which are, de facto, operating atheists? Just wondering...John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com and Recovering Republican...Also, an interviewer of Mr. Darby re: the Roy Moore case, the audio of which may soon be posted on our page... ___ 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: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
When I think of a criminal being redeemed, I think of the thief on the cross who said that We are getting the just rewards for our deeds. I believe that St Augustine of Hippo did not want to execute heretics, but wanted to give them an opportunity to turn from their wicked ways. If a person is redeemed, we should see some fruits of that redemption. Full disclosure of the crime, an attempt at restitution, and trying to do good works from then on. The Bible has several examples of people who committed murder (Moses, David) and were redeemed. Alan Armstrong Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Huntington Beach, California ___ 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: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
In a message dated 12/12/2005 8:40:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does that mean that it is illegitimate to base one's opposition tocapital punishment on it (or, for that matter, a literal, albeitdebatable, reading of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"), or, conversely, that it isillegitimate to base one's support for capital punishment on a biblicalnotion of "eye-for-an-eye" retribution? sandy Actually, last week, the 9th Circuit held that that an "eye-for-an-eye" is notjust a"biblical notion," but, rather, is "the kind of common knowledge which most jurors are presumed to possess." SeeFields v. Brown, --- F.3d , 2005 WL 3312690 (9th Cir. 2005) quoting Rodriguez v. Marshall, 125 F.3d 739, 745 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Payton v. Woodford, 299 F.3d 815, 828-29 n.11 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) in PDF format at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E25D17285077CC6882570D0007BCC23/$file/0099005.pdf?openelement Allen ___ 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.
From the list custodian re: viewpoints, wording, fund-raising, and subject matter
Folks: My general approach to this list has been to allow all viewpoints, though to insist that the viewpoints be framed in as polite a way as possible given the nature of those viewpoints. This includes anti-Semitism, anti-Protestantism, anti-evangelical-Christianity, anti-Catholicism, and the like. It seems to me that we should deal with those viewpoints either by arguing against them, or by ignoring them, as may seem more suitable to the occasion and to the offender. (I personally am more inclined to ignore Mr. Darby than to pay further attention to him on this list.) And while calling America Zionist-Occupied Government is surely a mark of anti-Semitism, it isn't a particularly rude way of expressing the opinion (however loathsome and foolish the opinion might be); if we are to maintain the rule that no viewpoints are excluded from the list, there seems to be no benefit in trying to channel Mr. Darby's anti-Semitism into other terms. As to other matters: Fund-raising for one's political campaign is indeed not allowed on this list. Occasional mentions of one's published work, including explicit or implicit suggestions that one buy it, are allowed, though it's important to keep them occasional. General criticisms of alleged Zionist influence on American government strike me as related to politics and ethnicity rather than to religion, and are thus off-topic; references that are more closely connected to the law of government and religion are not off-topic, again no matter how reprehensible the views may be. As to Mr. Darby's most recent post about Zionist influence, I opened the door to some degree of this in my earlier post criticizing Mr. Darby (a post that I think was on-topic because it described the character of someone who is a not insignificant legal player in law-of-government-and-religion debates). It seems to me that he's entitled to react for a few posts, though after a while I'll have to return to insisting that the connection of the arguments to the law of government and religion be stronger. 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.
Further from the list custodian
I am reluctant to allow certain viewpoints on the list and forbid other viewpoints based on how many people were lynched or murdered in this country owing to those viewpoints. (Incidentally, there have fortunately been relatively few Jews -- not none, but relatively few -- lynched or murdered in this country because they were Jewish.) Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:35 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Zionist-Occupied Government Mark, the difference might be that Protestant Empire is pretty vague and has never been used as a code word for persecution. I can't recall any instances where Protestants have been lynched or murdered in this country in anti-Protestant crusades (at least since the Puritans stopped hanging Quakers in the 1670s) The persecutin of Baptists in Virginia in the 1780s did not lead to killings. Even in Europe, it has been at least a 300 years since Protestants were attacked and murdered for their faith. Darby's language is a code wordor hatred and bigotry and is a form of hate speech. Under our First Amendment Darby has a constitutional right to be a bigot and a hate monger; he is free to dress up in a sheet or wear arm bands or both, but that does not mean we should provide a forum for his hatred and bigotry. This is Eugene's list, and he is free to tolerate Darby's hate-mongering if he wishes, but I do think there is a difference between Darby language and the examples you offer. Paul Finkelman Mark Graber wrote: I confess to thinking zionist-occupied government no more out of bounds than Protestant empire or claims that America is a Christian nation. I confess to think the later two more accurate, but do not think the first the sort of hate speech that ought to ba banned from the list. Mark A. Graber, Zionist, presently out of power. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/05 9:38 AM Paul's query again raises the question of the List's purposes. My own view is that phrases like Zionist-Occupied Government and, in Paul's words, the speaker's anti-Semitic self-promotion do not belong on this List. I recognize and admire Eugene's typical reluctance to censor emails posted to the List, but I do not see how such expressions have anything to do with a scholarly exploration of religion and government. That said, perhaps censoring the speech gives the speaker a credibility he certainly lacks. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
I agree with Sandy that *this* aspect of the redemption inquiry is indeed related to the law of government and religion. (I anticipated this in some measure when I wrote that we ought to discuss [the redemption question] only to the extent that it touches on the law of government and religion rather than suggesting that we ought not discuss the question at all.) Yet surely the answer is that it's perfectly legitimate for people to base either their support or opposition to capital punishment on religious justifications, just as it's legitimate for people to base their opposition to murder, slavery, racism, and the like on religious justification. Am I mistaken? Would some on this list argue otherwise? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:43 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed? I can understand Eugene's point, but let me try this response: We spend a lot of time arguing about the extent to which explicitly theological notions should be allowed to play a part in political decisionmaking. There are many secular arguments both for and against capital punishment. But it seems to me that the possibility-of-redemption argument ultimately sounds, for many people, in a religious sensibilty. Does that mean that it is illegitimate to base one's opposition to capital punishment on it (or, for that matter, a literal, albeit debatable, reading of Thou Shalt Not Kill), or, conversely, that it is illegitimate to base one's support for capital punishment on a biblical notion of eye-for-an-eye retribution? sandy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:23 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed? Folks: This is an interesting question, but it seems to me that on this list we ought to discuss it only to the extent that it touches on the law of government and religion. (What religious people should think about death penalty law wouldn't, I think, quite qualify.) 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. ___ 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. ___ 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: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:20:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yet surely the answer is that it's perfectly legitimate forpeople to base either their support or opposition to capital punishmenton religious justifications, just as it's legitimate for people to basetheir opposition to murder, slavery, racism, and the like on religiousjustification. Am I mistaken? Would some on this list argue otherwise? Eugene, of course you are correct, so far as you take your point. There is no government orthodoxy, as I understand it, that may be imposed on the thinking of the People about matters of politics, religion, and the like (a separate fight, please, about the meaning of "imposed"). But what about when the question moves beyond support for or opposition to the death penalty to actual cases? What happens when people of faith enter the jury box? What then are the constitutional strictures? If Venireman Smithmay basehis support for, or opposition to, the death penalty, on the teaching ofhis faith, how may the government modify its treatment of him in respect of that religious fount for his opinions and actions? If, in honest answer during voir dire, heexpresses the view that the death penalty is illicit in all cases, based on that religious belief, must he be excused for cause? may he be excused for cause? If VeniremanSmith supports the death penalty for murder because of the teaching of his faith, must he be excluded from service while Venirewoman Jones be retained for service because her opinions on the death penalty are not traceable to religious teaching or faith? May the Prosecutor (as I suspect is more likely) or the defense counsel inquire into religious faith with the intent and purpose of rooting out veniremen whose religious identity would likely predispose them in one way or another on the question of death? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
One can take this a step further and distinguish, as Rawls does, between constitutional /democratic contexts (where this type of public reasoning occurs) and the cultural background (where it does not.) It becomes very problematic when the standards of public reason are applied to cultural background arguments or discourse. Personally, I'm not sure I see such a bright line between the two and believe that cultural background arguments (such as about the religious/moral significance of redemtion) will inevitably spill over into an influence on legal/constitutional politics. David - Original Message - From: Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:35 PM Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed? A friendly amendment to Eugene's question is whether anyone on this list subscribes to the philosopher Robert Audi's View that conscientious citizens are required to engage in epistemic abstinence by filtering out any arguments even in their own consciousness that depend on religious presuppositions. A more moderate version is (one understanding of) John Rawl's argument that articulated arguments must be made in a publicly accessible discourse that rules out reference to inevitable religious arguments that many members of the audience would find inaccessible. Sandy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:49 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed? I agree with Sandy that *this* aspect of the redemption inquiry is indeed related to the law of government and religion. (I anticipated this in some measure when I wrote that we ought to discuss [the redemption question] only to the extent that it touches on the law of government and religion rather than suggesting that we ought not discuss the question at all.) Yet surely the answer is that it's perfectly legitimate for people to base either their support or opposition to capital punishment on religious justifications, just as it's legitimate for people to base their opposition to murder, slavery, racism, and the like on religious justification. Am I mistaken? Would some on this list argue otherwise? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:43 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed? I can understand Eugene's point, but let me try this response: We spend a lot of time arguing about the extent to which explicitly theological notions should be allowed to play a part in political decisionmaking. There are many secular arguments both for and against capital punishment. But it seems to me that the possibility-of-redemption argument ultimately sounds, for many people, in a religious sensibilty. Does that mean that it is illegitimate to base one's opposition to capital punishment on it (or, for that matter, a literal, albeit debatable, reading of Thou Shalt Not Kill), or, conversely, that it is illegitimate to base one's support for capital punishment on a biblical notion of eye-for-an-eye retribution? sandy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:23 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed? Folks: This is an interesting question, but it seems to me that on this list we ought to discuss it only to the extent that it touches on the law of government and religion. (What religious people should think about death penalty law wouldn't, I think, quite qualify.) 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. ___ 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. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
By saying, carefully, that the ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national government are “de facto, operating” atheists I sought to head off the type of response below. Oh, well….So, please, let me, briefly, elaborate on what I meant by interspersing my comments among the comments of Ed Brayton. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com. Mr. Brayton: I cannot let this go by without comment. I simply know too many members of the ACLU and the ABA who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or another faith to buy the argument that these are de facto atheist organizations. Comment: Saying someone is a “de facto, operating” atheist means, of course, that it doesn’t matter what this individual says he is. What matters is how this person, in fact, operates. For example, most public school teachers are, personally, probably some kind of Christian. But, this does not mean the public schools are Christian. They are de facto, operationally, atheist. In addition, according to my faith, Biblical Christianity, Old and New Testaments, Jesus says it is by one’s fruits, actions, that one is known, not by what one simply says. Mr. Brayton: Taking a strong policy on separation of church and state, as the ACLU does (sometimes too strong, in my view, but that's another matter), does not require that one be an atheist. Comment: True. But, as the old joke goes, paraphrased for this context: You don’t have to be an atheist to believe what the ACLU believes re: church-state, but it helps. Mr. Brayton: There is no atheist position on such questions, in fact, as you will also find atheists who favor an accomodationist view or even seek to have government endorse religion (Allan Bloom is one prominent example, as are many of his fellow Straussians). Comment: Of course there are de facto, operating “atheist positions” on such questions – by which I mean Godless positions, positions which leave out entirely and ignore the God of the Bible and His Word. Mr. Brayton: As for the three branches of our national government being atheist...I am tempted to denounce this as utter nonsense, but Prof. Volokh would no doubt say that's not being collegial enough for this list. But once in a while, you come across a statement that is so absurd that it would be perverse to pretend that it's not; I would politely suggest that this is one of them. Comment: Well, let’s see, please, if what I said is “utter nonsense” or “absurd.” In the New Testament, in Romans 13, 1-8, God tells us the purpose of civil government. It’s powers are ordained of God and our rulers are to be ministers of His Law. Do any of our three branches of national government acknowledge this verbally or actually strive to do God’s Will through applying His Word? No. Mr. Brayton: Can you name an atheist in Congress? If you can, I doubt you can name more than a handful. No one openly atheist could get elected in America or stay in office for long, for reasons Prof. Volokh spelled out yesterday based on public opinion polls. Our government is run almost exclusively by theists, mostly of the Christian variety, and has for a very long time. Comment: Not talking about anyone “openly atheist” but rather de facto, operational atheists. That being the case, I would say that virtually every member of Congress – de facto, operationally – is, in terms of their works, an atheist. I may, however, be wrong. Tell me, please, who in Congress says he believes about civil government what Romans 13:1-8 says and he acts like he believes this? When was the last time you heard a member of Congress oppose or endorse anything because it was against or in conformity to God’s view of civil government? Our government may, indeed, be run almost exclusively by “theists,” mostly Christians. But they are “Christian” in name only. We do not have a Christian government. Why? Because the so-called “faith” of these “Christians” is not applied to their works. And this means their “Christian/theistic” faith is DEAD because Scripture says a “faith” which produces no “works” is dead, no faith. Finally, a footnote on my use of the word “atheist.” It is my not really Biblically accurate shorthand for an unbeliever, meaning one who is not a Bible-believing (OT NT) Christian. St. Paul, in Romans 1:18ff, makes it clear that ALL men know there is a God; some worship Him, others don’t and hold down this truth (that there is a God) in unrighteousness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an “atheist” – meaning a person who really believes there is no God. ___ 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.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
This sounds chillingly like the Stalinist insistence that people deserved to be purged because they were objectively counter-revolutionary. And serves handily for labeling whoever the speaker has decided to dislike as objectively fascist or objectively racist, or perhaps even objectively Christian. Mr. Brayton: I cannot let this go by without comment. I simply know too many members of the ACLU and the ABA who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or another faith to buy the argument that these are de facto atheist organizations. Comment: Saying someone is a âde facto, operatingâ atheist means, of course, that it doesnât matter what this individual says he is. What matters is how this person, in fact, operates. ___ 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: Zionist-Occupied Government
I confess to agreeing more with Eugene than Michael on this one. First, one can equate, say Zionism with Nazism on various grounds without anyone taking offense. Both are nouns, both are names for political movements. This does not strike me as offensive, even though I am a Zionist who regards Nazism as evil. And all I mean to say is that people ought to be as free on this list to make arguments that the American government is dominated by Zionists as they are to claim that the United States is a Protestant Empire. Michael may even remember that, while finding all arguments for the former utterly unconvincing, I am fairly sympathetic with the latter. The issue is strictly what may be said, not the truth value of assertions and, for better or worse, while I think kike clearly crosses the line, my line is not crossed by calling the U.S. Government Zionist dominated, however mistaken I think that may be, and however ghastly the history of that accusation has been. Mark A. Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/05 2:48 PM You are way off the mark, unless you mean to criticize the dominant school of American religious historiography, including people like Martin Marty and Sydney Ahlstrom, among others, who routinely referred to America as a Protestant Empire. You don't think that I invented the term out of whole cloth, do you? (By the way, as near as I can tell, the term fist appeared in the 1840s through the pen of Rev. Robert Baird, an American Calvinist preacher, in a book he wrote styled Religion in the United States of America, first published in Glascow in 1844. Baird, for better or worse is reckoned by some as one of the founders of that historiography, a historiography that was dominant for well over a century.) Equating zionist-occupied government with Protestant Empire is unacceptable and I take great personal offense. It is like equating Nazism and laissez-faire Capitalism, both being theories of political organization. And it is equally offensive. ___ 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: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
In a message dated 12/13/05 2:42:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: St. Paul, in Romans 1:18ff, makes it clear that ALL men know there is a God; some worship Him, others don’t and hold down this truth (that there is a God) in unrighteousness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an “atheist” – meaning a person who really believes there is no God. Yes; as many atheists have long understood, no one *really* believes in God, many people just think they believe that. :) Art Spitzer (ACLU) (does not believe himself to be an atheist) ___ 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.
Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
Hi, In one sense, John Lofton's notion of operational atheism has much more to it than meets the eye. Consider, for example, the views of Radical Orthodox Christian theologians (e.g., John Milbank) and some other important post-liberal contemporary Christian thinkers (e.g., Stanley Hauerwas) who tend to take the view that much of modernity, including the underpinnings of our social science, the basis of our economic system, and the assumptions of our political theory, are profoundly at odds with the world-view of the Bible. If you're looking for an uncompromising, religiously-inspired, critique of the operational assumptions of our government and society, this is it. Significantly, though, these thinkers are _not_ sympathetic to the so-called religious right. To the contrary, they tend to find much of the religious right agenda to be either beside the point or perniciously Constantinian. Moreover, to the extent that they have public policy views (though they dislike the term), they tend to focus on issues such as justice for the poor (and skepticism about capitalism) or, in Hauerwas's case, an uncompromising opposition to war. So, at the end of the day, Ed Brayton is also profoundly right to point out that staunch religious believers can end up taking what might, in crude shorthand, be called the ACLU position on many of the issues that divide us, while proud atheists (including many neoconservatives) can easily take what might loosely be called the anti-ACLU position. The interesting question, though, is why this is, at least in popular discourse, so little noticed and appreciated. Perry *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ 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: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment: Well, let’s see, please, if what I said is “utter nonsense” or “absurd.” In the New Testament, in Romans 13, 1-8, God tells us the purpose of civil government. It’s powers are ordained of God and our rulers are to be ministers of His Law. Do any of our three branches of national government acknowledge this verbally or actually strive to do God’s Will through applying His Word? No. I'm sorry, I had no idea I was dealing with someone who thinks that any government that is not explicitly theocratic is de facto atheist. Had I known that, I wouldn't have bothered to attempt to dissuade you of your views. And thank God (ironically) that so many other Christians (I mean de facto atheists) don't agree with you in that regard. Take care. 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: Zionist-Occupied Government
I concur. The reference to "ZOG" evokes a view of Jewish conspiracy and influence that is simply a more current version ofthe "history" recited in the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- and has no more place in civil discourse. Richard From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Perry DaneSent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 4:05 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Zionist-Occupied Government The problem, though, is that the term "Zionist-occupied government" does not just evoke a factual claim, true or untrue. Nor is it just an "accusation." Rather, it is a specific anti-Semitic code phrase, which originated with certain specific, radical, anti-Semitic groups, and has, for them and others, a specific anti-Semitic meaning. I can easily see an argument for allowing all forms of language into a forum like this, including "kike." But, if lines are going to be drawn, then ZOG seems to me to be on the same side of the line as "kike."There is, of course, a larger conversation brewing here about the relationship between literal meaning and contextual understanding. But I'll let others pick up that baton if they like. PerryP.S.After I pushed the "send" button, my Eudora e-mail program just warned me that the term "Zionist-occupied government" might be considred offensive, and that I should reconsider using it in my e-mail. Aha.Mark Graber wrote: The issue is strictly what may be said, not the truth value of assertions and, for better or worse, while I think "kike" clearly crosses the line, my line is not crossed by calling the U.S. Government "Zionist dominated," however mistaken I think that may be, and however ghastly the history of that accusation has been. ***Perry Dane Professor of LawRutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth StreetCamden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/Work: (856) 225-6004Fax: (856) 969-7924Home: (610) 896-5702*** ___ 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: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
I appreciate Prof. Dane's serious response to what I wrote. And, for-the-record, I would like to say that although I am a Bible-believing, Calvinistic, postmillennialst, I (we) are very critical of the so-called Religious Right because most of their leaders are Republican Party cheerleaders and not first,Christian, leaders. See, please, our Mission Statement. May God bless us all -- as He does when we obey Him. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com ___ 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: Zionist-Occupied Government
Neoconservative is another code word for the Zionists (some Jews, some Jewish-Christians) who dominate the US Government. Theyre Israel-firsters. The dominant philosophy is Trotskyism. Dominionists is another term that covers those who put Israel first, as opposed to the US of A. A sure sign of an Israel-first is the use of hate-based words such as anti-semite or anti-Jew or anti-Israel those are all terms of semantic terrorism used to silence criticism of Judaism, its adherents or World Jewry, and US foreign policy when the someone broaches the notion that Israel is a terrorist state. In short, talk of freedom and democracy is not much different from the Jewish communism of Karl Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, etc., all of who were Jewish. Godless Communism was always a misnomer. To understand the fallacy of calling someone anti-semitic, its helpful to understand that semitic refers to a group of African-Asian languages, not Jews or any religion. Arabic, Ethiopic, Hebrew are just 3 of several semitic languages. Semantic terrorists who throw out the hate-based word anti-semitic are simply engaging in an offensive maneuver to stifle discussion. These are good sites to explore: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wvr.htm (When Victims Rule) http://judicial-inc.biz/False_Flags_summary.htm http://judicial-inc.biz/1_master_supreme.htm I suspect most people who are anti-Gentiles can explore the sites without dislodging any bigotry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Perry Dane Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 3:05 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Zionist-Occupied Government The problem, though, is that the term Zionist-occupied government does not just evoke a factual claim, true or untrue. Nor is it just an accusation. Rather, it is a specific anti-Semitic code phrase, which originated with certain specific, radical, anti-Semitic groups, and has, for them and others, a specific anti-Semitic meaning. I can easily see an argument for allowing all forms of language into a forum like this, including kike. But, if lines are going to be drawn, then ZOG seems to me to be on the same side of the line as kike. There is, of course, a larger conversation brewing here about the relationship between literal meaning and contextual understanding. But I'll let others pick up that baton if they like. Perry P.S.After I pushed the send button, my Eudora e-mail program just warned me that the term Zionist-occupied government might be considred offensive, and that I should reconsider using it in my e-mail. Aha. Mark Graber wrote: The issue is strictly whatmaybe said, not the truth value of assertions and, for better or worse,while I think kike clearly crosses the line, my line is notcrossed bycalling the U.S. Government Zionist dominated, howevermistaken Ithink that may be, and however ghastly the history of that accusationhasbeen. *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ 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: Zionist-Occupied Government
Zionism is on target with both religion and government. That's indisputable. Racism of Zionism is of Judaism, the Master Race or people of the book or the chosen people. One has to have one's head buried in sand not to understand that the ongoing FBI, SEC, Senate, and other investigations of certain people is all about ferreting out criminal elements. There is a lot going on in the world and religion and government surely is at least one aspect of it. Eugene opened up this can of worms with a very poorly written, inaccurate piece of non-journalism. I didn't. But ignorance of Zionism and world around us is a problem in the US of A and this is a good way to help some of you begin to open your eyes before it's too late. Some other useful links are: http://www.israelshamir.com/ http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/ http://www.marwenmedia.com/ http://www.marwenmedia.com/Articles.html Don't blindly accept what Americans have been taught by politically correct manipulators for decades. Check things out for yourself and then decide. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cruz Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:42 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Zionist-Occupied Government On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Larry Darby wrote: [snip] To understand the fallacy of calling someone anti-semitic, it's helpful to understand that semitic refers to a group of African-Asian languages, not Jews or any religion. Arabic, Ethiopic, Hebrew are just 3 of several semitic languages. Semantic terrorists who throw out the hate-based word anti-semitic are simply engaging in an offensive maneuver to stifle discussion. [snip] With all due respect, this 'technical' definition of semitic (or anti-semitic) is just one usage commonly accepted today. I suspect that many people who may never (have occasion to) use the term anti-semitic nonetheless recognize its wide use in conversation (and print) to mean One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews (to quote the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th edition, a compendium of actual usages). I therefore see no fallacy and will not refrain from using anti-semitic (with or without a capital S or a hyphen) if I believe it relevant to a discussion of the law of government and religion, to which subject I hope *all* list members will try closely to keep their posts. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Law School Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. ___ 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. ___ 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: Zionist-Occupied Government
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Larry Darby wrote: [snip] To understand the fallacy of calling someone anti-semitic, it's helpful to understand that semitic refers to a group of African-Asian languages, not Jews or any religion. Arabic, Ethiopic, Hebrew are just 3 of several semitic languages. Semantic terrorists who throw out the hate-based word anti-semitic are simply engaging in an offensive maneuver to stifle discussion. [snip] And our zionist occupied government is actually run by a cabal of Utah slot canyon hikers? Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of LawFort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University(954) 262-6151 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-3835 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel ___ 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: Zionist-Occupied Government
I think you (Mr. Graber) appear to be unaware that the term used was not a neutral government dominated by Zionists; it was the specific phrase Zionist-Occupied Government. This phrase was coined by and is used exclusively by white-supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups such as Aryan Nations, to refer to the U.S. government, which they claim is completely controlled by Jews. They use the phrase Zionist-Occupied Government with such frequency and regularity that they have come to abbreviate it as ZOG. These organizations claim that Jews are not white (whether or not they physically appear Caucasian) and that they are not only controlling America and the world, but are trying to eradicate the white race (sic) and must be stopped by any means possible. Many of these neo-Nazis are members of Christian Identity churches, which have racism and anti-Semitism as core parts of their theology (Eve mated with the serpent to produce the Jewish race [sic]), which they seek to spread evangelically. In short, the ZOG phrase has nothing to do with arguing the merits of Zionism (used in the way ordinary people would use the word, that is to say, as meaning a believer in the founding principles of and right to exist of the State of Israel). The use of ZOG, rather, indicates membership in, or at the very least an affinity for the precepts of, certain virulently racist and anti-Semitic groups which have been linked to many violent crimes in the past few years. ~Rita --- Mark Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I confess to agreeing more with Eugene than Michael on this one. First, one can equate, say Zionism with Nazism on various grounds without anyone taking offense. Both are nouns, both are names for political movements. This does not strike me as offensive, even though I am a Zionist who regards Nazism as evil. And all I mean to say is that people ought to be as free on this list to make arguments that the American government is dominated by Zionists as they are to claim that the United States is a Protestant Empire. Michael may even remember that, while finding all arguments for the former utterly unconvincing, I am fairly sympathetic with the latter. The issue is strictly what may be said, not the truth value of assertions and, for better or worse, while I think kike clearly crosses the line, my line is not crossed by calling the U.S. Government Zionist dominated, however mistaken I think that may be, and however ghastly the history of that accusation has been. Mark A. Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/05 2:48 PM You are way off the mark, unless you mean to criticize the dominant school of American religious historiography, including people like Martin Marty and Sydney Ahlstrom, among others, who routinely referred to America as a Protestant Empire. You don't think that I invented the term out of whole cloth, do you? (By the way, as near as I can tell, the term fist appeared in the 1840s through the pen of Rev. Robert Baird, an American Calvinist preacher, in a book he wrote styled Religion in the United States of America, first published in Glascow in 1844. Baird, for better or worse is reckoned by some as one of the founders of that historiography, a historiography that was dominant for well over a century.) Equating zionist-occupied government with Protestant Empire is unacceptable and I take great personal offense. It is like equating Nazism and laissez-faire Capitalism, both being theories of political organization. And it is equally offensive. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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.
