Lawyer to petition high court on Alabama prison rule that requires inmates to cut hair

2013-12-12 Thread Joel Sogol
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

2013-12-12 Thread Douglas Laycock
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

2013-12-12 Thread Rick Duncan
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

2013-12-12 Thread Christopher Lund
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.