Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

2013-12-09 Thread Penalver, Eduardo 
And then there's Florida:

A nearly 6-foot-tall 
"Festivus"
 pole made from empty beer cans will be put up in the Florida Capitol this week 
as a not-so-subtle protest to the recent placement of a Christmas nativity 
scene.

The mock monument will be erected most likely on Wednesday in the same 
first-floor rotunda as a nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus 
Christ
 put up last week by the Florida Prayer Network.

"I still chuckle, I literally can't believe there will be a pile of Pabst Blue 
Ribbon cans in the state rotunda," said Chaz Stevens, a Deerfield Beach 
resident who applied to the state Department of Management Services to put the 
Festivus pole on display.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-festivus-florida-capitol-20131209,0,1969699.story

Best wishes,
Eduardo



From: Christopher Lund mailto:l...@wayne.edu>>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Date: Monday, December 9, 2013 9:42 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
Legislature

The result and logic of Summum make sense to me, but I’ve been a little 
bothered by how far it’s gone.

For example... earlier this year, the 6th Circuit decided Freedom from Religion 
Foundation v. City of Warren.  The City of Warren had a Christmas display in 
the atrium of their city building—a crèche, a tree, reindeer and snowmen, a 
sign saying “Winter Welcome”—put up by the Warren Rotary Club.  FFRF wanted to 
put up their own display, a billboard saying that religion was nothing but myth 
and superstition.  FFRF, predictably, was denied the right to put up that 
display, and sued.  (For the sake of disclosure, I should add that I wrote an 
amicus brief on FFRF’s side for the ACLU of Michigan.)

Anyway, throughout the litigation, the City said that the crèche was not their 
crèche, but that of the Warren Rotary Club.  It was not governmental speech, 
they said, but private speech.  The City defended FFRF’s exclusion by saying 
that their reasons were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.  This was their clear 
and consistent position, at trial and on appeal.  Their brief to the 6th 
Circuit, for example, said things like, “This crèche is accompanied by a sign 
that makes clear that it is 'sponsored by the Warren Rotary Club' and not 
intended to advocate Warren’s viewpoint” (appellee’s brief at 16).

So everyone was thoroughly surprised when they got the appellate opinion, 
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0049p-06.pdf, which completely 
re-characterized the case.  This was government speech, the 6th Circuit said, 
despite the City’s own protestations.  And evaluated under Lynch/Allegheny 
County, it was constitutional.

I’m not even disagreeing with this result.  We should have briefed the 
government speech / Establishment Clause issues better, rather than focusing on 
the private speech / Free Speech and Free Exercise issues.  But we treated this 
as private speech, because the City had conceptualized it that way the whole 
time—including the original letter that had denied FFRF’s request.  Litigators 
beware.

Best,
Chris
___
Christopher C. Lund
Associate Professor of Law
Wayne State University Law School
471 West Palmer St.
Detroit, MI  48202
l...@wayne.edu
(313) 577-4046 (phone)
(313) 577-9016 (fax)
Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/
Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402


From: "Len" mailto:campquest...@comcast.net>>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature

Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a 
public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building?


From: "Steven Jamar" mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature

Sunnum handles this, no?

Sent from Steve's iPhone
___
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

RE: unsubscribe

2013-12-09 Thread Volokh, Eugene 
Whoops, sorry for sending the message to the whole list -- but, 
still, it's useful information to keep in mind, should you need to unsubscribe 
from one address and subscribe from another, change your subscription settings, 
and so on.

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:17 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: unsubscribe

You need to go the religionlaw management page, 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw, and unsubscribe 
there.

From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of 
mosh...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 8:44 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Cc: 
religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: unsubscribe

unsubscribe

Merrill Shapiro
58 Mount Vernon Lane
Palm Coast, Florida 32164
386-446-6061 mosh...@aol.com 
 
In a message dated 12/2/2013 3:07:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu writes:
religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu



___
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: unsubscribe

2013-12-09 Thread Volokh, Eugene 
You need to go the religionlaw management page, 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw, and unsubscribe 
there.

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of mosh...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 8:44 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Cc: religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: unsubscribe

unsubscribe

Merrill Shapiro
58 Mount Vernon Lane
Palm Coast, Florida 32164
386-446-6061 mosh...@aol.com 
 
In a message dated 12/2/2013 3:07:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu writes:
religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu



___
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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

2013-12-09 Thread Marc Stern 
The point of this exercise may not be a legal one, but a PR one. And if that is 
the case, Summum is more or less irrelevant. Of course,  it is also possible 
that the Satanists may have retained an incompetent lawyer.
Marc 

-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 10:36 PM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
Legislature

A county can surely do that - but the constitutional issue is clear.

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and 
Social Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth 
corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves 
treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where 
thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will 
your heart be also. 

Matthew 6:19-21





On Dec 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Marc Stern  wrote:

> True enough: but American Humanist Society recently persuaded a 
> Florida county to put up their"monument" as a counter to a Ten 
> Commandments display. Marc
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 09:47 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; 
> Joel Sogol 
> Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
> OklahomaLegislature
> 
> Doesn't sound like anyone involved has read Summum -- not the Satanists, not 
> the legislator, and not the ACLU.
> 
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 20:22:14 -0600
> "Joel Sogol"  wrote:
>> Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
>> Legislature
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-st
>> atue-be side-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Joel L. Sogol
>> 
>> Attorney at Law
>> 
>> 811 21st Ave.
>> 
>> Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
>> 
>> ph (205) 345-0966
>> 
>> fx (205) 345-0971
>> 
>> email: jlsa...@wwisp.com
>> 
>> website: www.joelsogol.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we 
>> have evidence rules in U.S. courts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia 
> Law School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA  22903
> 434-243-8546
> ___
> 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.

___
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.

unsubscribe

2013-12-09 Thread Moshe18 
unsubscribe
 
Merrill  Shapiro
58 Mount Vernon Lane
Palm Coast, Florida 32164
386-446-6061_ mosh...@aol.com  

 
In a message dated 12/2/2013 3:07:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu writes:

religionlaw-requ...@lists.ucla.edu


_ (mailto:mosh...@aol.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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

2013-12-09 Thread Douglas Laycock 
Haven’t read the opinion, but what Chris describes seems clearly right. 
Preferential access is a form of endorsement, whether permanent or temporary. 
These are the facts of Allegheny (one private actor gets to put up a Christmas 
display in a government building), with the reindeer and snowmen to save it 
under Lynch. Of course the three-plastic-reindeer rule is dubious. But treating 
this as government speech doesn’t seem dubious at all. 

 

Douglas Laycock

Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Virginia Law School

580 Massie Road

Charlottesville, VA  22903

 434-243-8546

 

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:43 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
Legislature

 

The result and logic of Summum make sense to me, but I’ve been a little 
bothered by how far it’s gone.

 

For example... earlier this year, the 6th Circuit decided Freedom from Religion 
Foundation v. City of Warren.  The City of Warren had a Christmas display in 
the atrium of their city building—a crèche, a tree, reindeer and snowmen, a 
sign saying “Winter Welcome”—put up by the Warren Rotary Club.  FFRF wanted to 
put up their own display, a billboard saying that religion was nothing but myth 
and superstition.  FFRF, predictably, was denied the right to put up that 
display, and sued.  (For the sake of disclosure, I should add that I wrote an 
amicus brief on FFRF’s side for the ACLU of Michigan.) 

 

Anyway, throughout the litigation, the City said that the crèche was not their 
crèche, but that of the Warren Rotary Club.  It was not governmental speech, 
they said, but private speech.  The City defended FFRF’s exclusion by saying 
that their reasons were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.  This was their clear 
and consistent position, at trial and on appeal.  Their brief to the 6th 
Circuit, for example, said things like, “This crèche is accompanied by a sign 
that makes clear that it is 'sponsored by the Warren Rotary Club' and not 
intended to advocate Warren’s viewpoint” (appellee’s brief at 16).

 

So everyone was thoroughly surprised when they got the appellate opinion, 
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0049p-06.pdf, which completely 
re-characterized the case.  This was government speech, the 6th Circuit said, 
despite the City’s own protestations.  And evaluated under Lynch/Allegheny 
County, it was constitutional.

 

I’m not even disagreeing with this result.  We should have briefed the 
government speech / Establishment Clause issues better, rather than focusing on 
the private speech / Free Speech and Free Exercise issues.  But we treated this 
as private speech, because the City had conceptualized it that way the whole 
time—including the original letter that had denied FFRF’s request.  Litigators 
beware.

 

Best,

Chris

___

Christopher C. Lund

Associate Professor of Law

Wayne State University Law School

471 West Palmer St.

Detroit, MI  48202

l...@wayne.edu  

(313) 577-4046 (phone)

(313) 577-9016 (fax)

Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/

Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402

 

  _  

From: "Len" mailto:campquest...@comcast.net> >
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature

 

Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a 
public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building?

 

  _  

From: "Steven Jamar" mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com> >
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu  
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature

 

Sunnum handles this, no?

 

Sent from Steve's iPhone  

___
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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

2013-12-09 Thread Christopher Lund 
The result and logic of Summum make sense to me, but I’ve been a little 
bothered by how far it’s gone.



For example... earlier this year, the 6th Circuit decided Freedom from 
Religion Foundation v. City of Warren.  The City of Warren had a Christmas 
display in the atrium of their city building—a crèche, a tree, reindeer and 
snowmen, a sign saying “Winter Welcome”—put up by the Warren Rotary Club. 
FFRF wanted to put up their own display, a billboard saying that religion 
was nothing but myth and superstition.  FFRF, predictably, was denied the 
right to put up that display, and sued.  (For the sake of disclosure, I 
should add that I wrote an amicus brief on FFRF’s side for the ACLU of 
Michigan.)



Anyway, throughout the litigation, the City said that the crèche was not 
their crèche, but that of the Warren Rotary Club.  It was not governmental 
speech, they said, but private speech.  The City defended FFRF’s exclusion 
by saying that their reasons were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.  This 
was their clear and consistent position, at trial and on appeal.  Their 
brief to the 6th Circuit, for example, said things like, “This crèche is 
accompanied by a sign that makes clear that it is 'sponsored by the Warren 
Rotary Club' and not intended to advocate Warren’s viewpoint” (appellee’s 
brief at 16).



So everyone was thoroughly surprised when they got the appellate opinion, 
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0049p-06.pdf, which completely 
re-characterized the case.  This was government speech, the 6th Circuit 
said, despite the City’s own protestations.  And evaluated under 
Lynch/Allegheny County, it was constitutional.



I’m not even disagreeing with this result.  We should have briefed the 
government speech / Establishment Clause issues better, rather than focusing 
on the private speech / Free Speech and Free Exercise issues.  But we 
treated this as private speech, because the City had conceptualized it that 
way the whole time—including the original letter that had denied FFRF’s 
request.  Litigators beware.



Best,

Chris

___

Christopher C. Lund

Associate Professor of Law

Wayne State University Law School

471 West Palmer St.

Detroit, MI  48202

l...@wayne.edu

(313) 577-4046 (phone)

(313) 577-9016 (fax)

Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/

Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402



  _

From: "Len" 
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at 
Oklahoma Legislature



Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in 
a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building?



  _

From: "Steven Jamar" 
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at 
Oklahoma Legislature



Sunnum handles this, no?



Sent from Steve's iPhone

___
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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

2013-12-09 Thread Steven Jamar 
What is the difference?  Both open to the public.  Both are (probably) 
unlimited public forums though subject to somewhat differing regulations as to 
use, one would suppose.

But what Summum decided was that it wasn’t the public forum nature of the park 
that controlled but rather the compelled government speech.  The question of 
whether the Satanists get to place a permanent religious monument in a public 
forum was decided in Summum — the state can refuse to do so.  Whether a state 
can permit such monuments to be placed raises a different question — there 
could be establishment endorsement problems.  And whether the 10 commandments 
can be there depends on fine distinctions unsupportable by logic, consistency, 
or theory, but all of those often give way to practical solutions, even in Con 
Law.



-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and 
Social Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"Example is always more efficacious than precept."

Samuel Johnson, 1759




On Dec 9, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Len  wrote:

> apologies for the previously unsigned post.
>  
> Leonard A. Zanger
> Camp Quest of Michigan, Inc.
>  
> 
> From: "Len" 
> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
> Oklahoma Legislature
> 
> Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in 
> a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building?
> 
> From: "Steven Jamar" 
> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
> Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
> Oklahoma Legislature
> 
> Sunnum handles this, no?
> 
> Sent from Steve's iPhone 
> 
> 
> On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Inevitable.   
> 
> Marci
> 
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003 
> (212) 790-0215 
> http://sol-reform.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Sogol 
> To: Religionlaw 
> Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm
> Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
> Legislature
> 
> Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
>  
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite
>  
>  
> Joel L. Sogol
> Attorney at Law
> 811 21st Ave.
> Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
> ph (205) 345-0966
> fx (205) 345-0971
> email: jlsa...@wwisp.com
> website: www.joelsogol.com
>  
> Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have 
> evidence rules in U.S. courts.
>  
> ___
> 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.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 w

Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

2013-12-09 Thread Len 
apologies for the previously unsigned post. 
  
Leonard A. Zanger 
Camp Quest of Michigan, Inc. 
  

- Original Message -

From: "Len"  
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"  
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM 
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature 

Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a 
public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? 

- Original Message -

From: "Steven Jamar"  
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"  
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM 
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature 

Sunnum handles this, no? 

Sent from Steve's iPhone  


On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: 




Inevitable.    

Marci 

Marci A. Hamilton 
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law 
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 
Yeshiva University 
55 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY 10003  
(212) 790-0215   
http://sol-reform.com 

      


-Original Message- 
From: Joel Sogol < jlsa...@wwisp.com > 
To: Religionlaw < religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > 
Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm 
Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
Legislature 

Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature 
  
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite
 
  
  
Joel L. Sogol 
Attorney at Law 
811 21st Ave. 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 
ph (205) 345-0966 
fx (205) 345-0971 
email: jlsa...@wwisp.com 
website: www.joelsogol.com 
  
Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have 
evidence rules in U.S. courts. 
  
___
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. 


___
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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature

2013-12-09 Thread Len 
Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a 
public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? 

- Original Message -

From: "Steven Jamar"  
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"  
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM 
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
Legislature 

Sunnum handles this, no? 

Sent from Steve's iPhone 


On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: 




Inevitable. 

Marci 

Marci A. Hamilton 
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law 
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 
Yeshiva University 
55 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com 



-Original Message- 
From: Joel Sogol < jlsa...@wwisp.com > 
To: Religionlaw < religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > 
Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm 
Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma 
Legislature 

Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature 
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite
 
Joel L. Sogol 
Attorney at Law 
811 21st Ave. 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 
ph (205) 345-0966 
fx (205) 345-0971 
email: jlsa...@wwisp.com 
website: www.joelsogol.com 
Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have 
evidence rules in U.S. courts. 
___
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. 

___
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.