Lawyer to petition high court on Alabama prison rule that requires inmates to cut hair
Mark Sabel, an attorney representing the inmates, says he's planning to file a file a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the issue is a matter of religious liberty. His clients have argued that long hair is a cornerstone of their religion and said they'd face eternal consequences if they were to die with their hair cut short. The 11th Circuit Court's decision is contrary to rulings made by other federal courts, Sabel said. http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20131212/NEWS/131219939/1007?Title=Law yer-to-petition-high-court-on-Alabama-prison-rule-that-requires-inmates-to-c ut-hair J 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.
RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
That may well be with respect to passive displays; probably not with respect to live speakers. But I inadvertently misled by talking about endorsement. The question under discussion was whether allowing one group and only one group to erect a display on government property makes it government speech. The answer to that is still yes. The nativity scene put up by the preferred group becomes government speech, even if the endorsement test is overruled and that speech becomes permissible. If the nativity scene were private speech, there would be obvious viewpoint discrimination and a Speech Clause violation. It becomes permissible only if it is government speech -- and then only if government is permitted to endorse the truth claims of a particular faith. These are two different issues. 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 Rick Duncan Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:03 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature I think Doug is correct that preferential access probably triggers Allegheny and the endorsement test. But Justice O'Connor is long gone, and Allegheny is ripe for re-consideration. I suspect the endorsement test would not survive re-consideration, given the current lineup on the Court. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2361504 And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill) _ ___ 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
Doug is absolutely correct here. The Govt wins if this is government speech and the Ten C display does not violate the EC, either because a majority decides the endorsement test does not apply or, if it does apply, the display does not amount to an endorsement of religion (perhaps a majority may conclude that the purpose and effect do not endorse religion, but merely recognize the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in the local community). If this is some kind of forum for private speech--even if it is a non-public forum--Pl wins if this amounts to viewpoint discrimination. But if it is a non-public forum, and the restriction amounts to content or speaker but not viewpoint discrimination, the Govt will win if the content or speaker exclusion is reasonable. So a policy that allows local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential access, if used to exclude an outside group with minimal ties to the community, may be permissible in a non-public forum. I think this is correct. No? Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill) From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu To: 'Rick Duncan' nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:05 AM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandmentsmonument at Oklahoma Legislature That may well be with respect to passive displays; probably not with respect to live speakers. But I inadvertently misled by talking about endorsement. The question under discussion was whether allowing one group and only one group to erect a display on government property makes it government speech. The answer to that is still yes. The nativity scene put up by the preferred group becomes government speech, even if the endorsement test is overruled and that speech becomes permissible. If the nativity scene were private speech, there would be obvious viewpoint discrimination and a Speech Clause violation. It becomes permissible only if it is government speech -- and then only if government is permitted to endorse the truth claims of a particular faith. These are two different issues. 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 Rick Duncan Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:03 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature I think Doug is correct that preferential access probably triggers Allegheny and the endorsement test. But Justice O'Connor is long gone, and Allegheny is ripe for re-consideration. I suspect the endorsement test would not survive re-consideration, given the current lineup on the Court. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill) ___ 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.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Decides Scientology is a Religion
This title somewhat oversimplifies things, so please forgive it. Anyway, yesterday the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released the judgment in R v. Registrar General, available here, http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0030_Judgment.pdf. The plaintiffs in the case were a Scientologist couple (opposite-sex) whose marriage in a church ceremony was denied legal recognition. By statute, religious marriages in Britain must be performed in a “place of meeting for religious worship” to be given legal recognition, and an old precedent (a 1970 case, Segerdal) had concluded that while Scientology may or may not be a religion, in any event Scientologists don’t worship. The Court here reverses course, interpreting “religion” as broad enough to include Scientology, and “worship” as broad enough to include Scientologist practices. There’s a lot in it that’s interesting. If I were a casebook editor, I might include it in the section of the casebook that’s usually titled, “What Is Religion?” The Court contrasts more functional, more family-resemblance-style approaches to religion (such as the one our Supreme Court took in Seeger and Welsh, both of which are mentioned in the opinion) with more formalistic, more elemental kinds of approaches (such as the one suggested by a High Court of Australia judge). In deciding to adopt our kind of approach, the Court relies heavily on the inequity that would result from a narrow view of religion. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism might all be unprotected. Courts would have to venture into “difficult theological territory” (p. 17), as even some professed Christians do not believe in God. (There is a paragraph about Honest to God, the 1963 book by Bishop John Robinson.) The Court does not go so far to say that all belief systems are religious in nature. Instead, it says there must be “a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind’s nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science,” although it then immediately backs away from this a bit, adding that “this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula.” I also liked that the opinion begins with a nice bit of history chronicling the development of legal marriage in England. At the beginning, it seems like the classic establishment of religion—total church control over marriage. Accommodation of dissenters is both gradual and slow. Before the Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753, marriage was governed entirely by canon law (of the Church of England). The 1753 Act changed that. It created marriage as a legal institution, although if people wanted to get married, they could only do so in an Anglican church by an Anglican minister. Exceptions were made, but only for Quakers and Jews. That changed only with the Marriage Act of 1836, which allowed marriage in any “place of meeting for religious worship” (which is where the phrase comes from) and other authorized non-religious venues. Not only does the opinion cite Seeger and Welsh and Malnak v. Yogi, it cites Professors Sarah Barringer Gordon (Penn) and Leslie Griffin (UNLV), and discusses Professor Gordon’s work in some detail. Congratulations to them! Best, Chris ___ Christopher C. Lund Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Notre Dame Law School P.O. Box 780 Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780 clu...@nd.edu Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 ___ 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.
