Re: RLUIPA Case With Great facts
Can they really using zoning laws to determine the content of meetings held on the property? It would seem to me that, unless the ordinance also bans barn dances, weddings, family reunions, or any other large gatherings, this would require strict scrutiny, even under Smith, and I'm not sure how the country prevails under that standard. Where Alan replied (re: RLUIPA type state legislation) that the farm bureau said, they had nothing against houses of worship -- they just wanted them located somewhere else, where they would not inconvenience their constituents, I would think that using zoning regulations to dictate what a person can or cannot do on their own property would need a stronger reason than just somebody's desire not to be inconvenienced. Brad Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/10/2006 12:43 PM Please respond to Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu cc Subject RLUIPA Case With Great facts From a Liberty Counsel press release: May 10, 2006 News Release Virginia County Bucking Against Cowboy Church Bedford County, VA In a demand letter written to Bedford County officials, Liberty Counsel has warned the county to back off its citation against a Cowboy Church. The letter was written on behalf of Raymond Bell, the pastor of The Cowboy Church of Virginia. Mr. Garland Simmons owns and farms nearly all of his 900 acres in Bedford County. A few months ago, he agreed to open up his barn every Thursday night for worship services conducted by The Cowboy Church of Virginia. Having a church in a barn in the middle of a large field has become a big deal to Bedford County. Mr. Simmons received a Notice of Violation a few days ago, stating that the barn cannot be used for religious services and that his 900 acres of property arent zoned for religious meetings, therefore, he would not even be able to apply for a permit. Mr. Simmons has been given thirty days to appeal the decision. Liberty Counsels demand letter states that Bedford County is violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the First Amendment. The letter requests that Bedford County officials immediately rescind the Notice of Violation or face a possible federal lawsuit. Nice exam question perhaps. Cheers, Rick Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence. --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst. -- Id. Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone.___ 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: Catholic Charities Issue
Nonsense. The number of people who believe they have the responsibility to bash in gay heads is a minute percentage of those whose faith teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for heterosexual monogamous marriage, just as those who blow up abortion clinics are a minute percentage of those faith teaches that legalized abortion is wrong. Assault is never a matter of religious liberty and I can't begin to fathom why you would see the two as intertwined in any way whatsoever. That fact that a handful of fools who should be locked up think so doesn't mean that the vast majority of those who fight for religious liberty are on their side. I've seen enough of your postings to know that you know better than that. Brad Michael wrote on 03/13/2006 10:22:58 AM: The fact that there are laws in place is, often times, scant comfort. The religious liberty issue may, in the final analysis for some people, merely mean the liberty to bash in gay heads, all in name of 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. 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: AU pushes Senate Docket 2101 in Massachusetts
When Mr. Hoag compares AA to a cult preying upon the most vulnerable of people, he demonstrates his willingness to distort the nature of AA, and he loses the benefit of the doubt on all that follows. There may well be constitutional problems with courts mandating AA attendance, but I'll consider those problems when they are raised by people whose words don't give evidence of a pre-existing bias against an organization that has brought freedom from addiction to millions of people around the world. Brad Pardee Tommy Perkins wrote on 03/07/2006 11:34:00 AM: AU pushes Senate Docket 2101 in Massachusetts http://tinylink.com/?itXIQG0zmn ___ 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: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
*soapbox mode on*I read stories like this, and I say to myself that it's no wonder so many people think conservative Christians are intolerant idiots. Doesn't this guy understand that stupid things like this accomplish nothing other than leaving a mess for others to clean up? *soapbox mode off* Sigh. Thanks for passing this along. I've often said that the biggest proof of the existence of God is the fact that Christianity still exists despite who He has for ambassadors. Sheesh. Brad Jean Dudley wrote: Via Eschaton: Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official majority religion. House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature. Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday. Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution. The resolution would recognize a Christian god, and it would not protect minority religions, but protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs. The resolution also recognizes that, a greater power exists, and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, justified recognition. State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone. KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.___ 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.
Book recommendations for non-lawyers who want to be informed
What books would you recommend for non-lawyers such as myself who want to have as full an understanding of the first amendment religion clauses as they can outside of being able to attend law school? I'm thinking something that would not only address the significant cases and issues, but would also give a fair and unbiased explanation of both the strict constructionist perspecitve as well as the (for lack of the proper term) Constitution as a living document school of thought. I have Stephen Carter's books, Culture of Disbelief and God's Name In Vain. What else should I look for? Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Sherbert v Verner
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the recent O Centro case, and in the course of discussion, he said that Employment Division v. Smith did not get rid of the free exercise rule proceeding from Sherbert v. Verner because Smith was only about unemployment compensation and not free exercise. It was my understanding, though, that Smith had in fact disposed of Sherbert based on its conclusion that any generally applicable law that was neutral on its face was exempt from a free exercise challenge. Are either of us right, or are both of us missing something? Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Where academic freedom and the First Amendment religion clauses clash
There was an interesting column in today campus paper about the hostility in certain places on our campus (a state university) toward conservative Christians (and, in fact, conservatives in general, although it's the hostility based on the student's religion which is germane to this list). One of the significant points of the column, written by a member of the English Dept. faculty, says, I have before me an e-mail from a conservative Catholic student who had 'consistently been ostracized throughout [last] semester' in a class in which the professor had 'harassed and belittled' her for her faith, ultimately going on a rant that reduced the student to tears. Assume for the sake of discussion that this description of the student's experience is accurate (and I have no reason to assume it is not). What would happen if the student were to file a complaint that the professor, as a representative of a state institution, was violating either the student's First Amendment right to free exercise or the Establishment Clause (assuming that a state can neither advocate nor denigrate a particular religion)? Does the professor have a defense in claiming academic freedom, or does the First Amendment trump that claim? The entire story is at http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/22/43fbe6d7caf9f Brad Pardee___ 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: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
Does this decision affect Employment Division Vs. Smith? The quote below makes it sound like it is revisiting the same issue. One can only hope! Brad Mark Tushnet wrote on 02/21/2006 09:12:53 AM: the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban a religious from using a herbal tea that contains a substance that the government considers to be harmful. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion. Only new Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not take part. -- from SCOTUS Blog ___ 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: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Jean Dudley wrote on 01/26/2006 06:03:25 PM: I'm one of those likeminded individuals. I've known folks who hold that homosexuality is wrong, and yet managed to refrain from insulting, intimidating, berating, harassing and threatening homosexuals. In fact, they even stand up AGAINST that sort of behavior, AS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF. What you describe here is the way it ought to be. It is shameful that there are not more people who, although believing that homosexual behavior is wrong, stand up against the kind of behavior you list here. Fred Phelps does not speak for me and never will. There are far to many people who, by their silence, give the impression that they don't have a problem with his words and deeds or those of his supporters. I think you're painting with too broad a brush. I've NEVER heard any of my compatriots EVER call someone a hateful bigot simply because they held a belief that homosexuality is wrong. Sounds like you and your compatriots are far more noble in the debate than those that I have seen and heard. However, I DO NOT have to put up with harassment here and now, and I DEMAND that teachers in public schools make EVERY effort to ensure that students don't have to put up with a hostile environment because of their self-identified sexual orientation, their religion, their color, their national origin, or their political affiliations. That's a legitimate demand. It ought to go beyond what you list here. Students shouldn't have to put up with a hostile environment for any reason. But there are those (and it sounds like you are not one of them) who would say that simply saying that homosexual behavior is wrong creates a hostile environment. Those are the people that I am reacting to. Not people like you who understand the difference between saying Such and such a behavior is wrong and We hate people who accept such and such behavior or participate in it. And if the schoolboard makes a decision to communicate that such things will not be tolerated by putting up rainbow flags, pink triangles and lambda sigil, then teachers REGARDLESS of their religious affiliation are duty bound to uphold it. And this is where our differing experiences lead to differing understandings of what is being communicated. To you, the pink triangles may mean there should be no harassment or bullying or abuse. In my experience, the meaning (in practice) has been a political message that is substantially broader, more like the example Will posted. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
I'm not entirely clear about what you're saying here. I don't think I said anything about assuming individuals are having sex outside of heterosexual marriage. I was talking about whether or not it is bigotry to say that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. You are absolutely right that a person can be gay and celibate. I'm not sure what it was I said that communicated otherwise. If I was unclear, though, please accept my apologies. Rita wrote on 01/26/2006 09:56:30 PM: Question: How would such individuals know whether persons they perceive to be gay are having sex outside of heterosexual marriage or indeed having sex at all?? This is certainly an example of prejudice in its classic semantic meaning -- presupposing something about someone without any proof, based on preconceived notions of what must be so. Being gay is not about sex. A person can be gay and celibate (and indeed many are). It would seem that it is indeed the bigots, and their extremist counterparts, the harassers and attackers, who are being disingenous when they claim they are only expressing their religious view that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. ~Rita___ 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: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
We have the pink triangles here at the University of Nebraska, too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I personally believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male, female, or any other reason at all, then there's a campus safety issue. In practice, though, what they call safety really means I won't hear anyone suggest that sex belongs only within a heterosexual marriage. Superintendent Lim's claim that it's not about a belief system is simply disingenuous. I say this as somebody who experienced more than a little verbal abuse growing up. I was considered a geek or a spaz or a nerd because I played the violin, I wasn't athletic, I was smart, and I didn't have many social skills. Did it hurt? Absolutely. Should the other kids have done it? Of course not. But that's part of what kids do. There will always be some kids who pick on other kids, either verbally or physically, sometimes both, and to varying degrees, especially if the victims aren't considered part of the in crowd. But the issue wasn't whether I was a geek or a spaz or a nerd. The issue was the abuse. If they think putting up posters about safety will make a difference, they're kidding themselves. If the bullies don't abuse kids because of their sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation, because not everybody abused for being gay really is gay), then they'll abuse them because they don't have a car or because their clothes aren't fashionable or because they're smart or because they wear glasses. Or because they play the violin. If they seriously wanted to address safety, then the posters would not single out one segment of the student body to say You're accepted to. They'd talk, instead, about bullying and disrespect across the board. Suppose you have Mike who goes to school and is very active in his evangelical church. He's invited to a party, and they tell him that there will be alcohol there and maybe a chance to have sex without any parents to say not to. Consequently, he says he won't go, and when asked why not, he tells them the truth: that drinking and premarital sex go against the teachings of his faith. In response, he gets called a prude or a holy roller or a Jesus freak. He opens his locker to find other students have stuck Playboy centerfolds in it. Is the school district going to make sure there is a banner in every classroom saying it's okay to hold any given faith and to live according to it? Not likely, and even if they did, would that mean the other students would stop mocking and harassing him? Even less likely. That's why a teacher has a legitimate reason to object to these posters, regardless of whether there is a Constitutional issue or not, because they have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with expressing the District's preferred political message. And the students who believe that sex belongs solely within a monogamous heterosexual marriage? They get the in your face message every day that the District considers them a threat to safety. I'm sure that makes them feel very welcome. Brad Rick Duncan wrote: I don't know if this report is accurate or not, but here is an excerpt: A holy war over homosexuality has erupted on the campus of a San Francisco Bay area high school, as five teachers are refusing orders to display a pro-gay banner because of their religious beliefs. The rainbow-flag poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school. The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted in all classrooms. This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation.___ 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: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Ed Brayton wrote: I think you're presuming here what you can't possibly know. You don't know what the motivations are of the people who want those signs to go up. How do you know that they're not genuinely concerned about the amount of bullying that goes on of anyone presumed to be gay? I've been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed, The concerns you raise about bullying and harassment are legitimate concerns to any sane person. If the safety message, in practice, was about bullying and harrassment, I would support it because of my own experience of being bullied and harassed, albeit on a lesser scale for things not related to my sexual orientation. I have friends and family members who are homosexual, and if I heard about them being bullied or harassed, I know I'd want to do whatever was within my power to either stop the abuse or to ease the pain. I don't even know what words can adequately describe how I would feel if I heard that they were contemplating suicide because of being bullied or harassed. It is in practice, though, that the rubber meets the road. You're right that I can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt about motivations of the specific officials in San Leandro. I haven't seen their past actions or heard their past pronouncements. I do know what I've seen of what appears to be like-minded individuals here at UNL, though. The word they use may be safety, but in practice, they raise the issue of safety and dignity whenever they encounter anybody who believes that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class
So much for the oft-repeated myth that opponents of intelligent design simply want to keep ID out of the science classrooms. When I read this article, it seemed pretty clear that groups like Americans United aren't going to be content with that. They seem to want to make sure that any student in a public school makes it safely to graduation without ever having heard about ID in any forum of any kind at school (unless, of course, it's a forum where they can say, See, anybody with any scientific understanding knows that ID isn't true.) If I had kids, this is the sort of poppycock that would have cynics like me following Rick Duncan's example and homeschooling them. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Regarding A note about the Atheist Legal Center
Larry, I've been trying to find a way to explain your statements as being merely uninformed as opposed to malicious and hateful. When you say things like There's no business like shoah business, though, you leave the reasonable observer no choice but to understand that you are a bigot. As far as Eugene's integrity is concerned, in all the time I've been on this list, I have never seen him reflect anything other than honesty and gentlemanliness. I don't always agree with him, but when we do disagree, he still has my respect. He has earned that. You, on the other hand, have not. May the God you don't believe in have mercy on you nonetheless. Brad Pardee Larry Darby wrote on 01/03/2006 06:00:32 AM: Paul, I have little or no interest responding to your query; it appears to be an attempt at misdirection away from the issues, such as Volokh's dishonesty and rampant Jewish Supremacism in the United States. Also, I recall your bigotry against atheists that you expressed during our chat at the Roy Moore trial. I recall too that your credibility as an expert was seriously undermined at the trial of former justice Roy Moore and that some assertion made in your report had to be withdrawn or redacted as being untruthful or something to that effect. That said, one does not have to have survived anything to be deemed a holocaust survivor just as one does not have to deny mass deaths of innocents in order for the mythmakers and profiteers of the Holocaust Industry to deem one a holocaust denier. There's no business like shoah business! ___ 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: Regarding A note about the Atheist Legal Center
My last response, after which I will follow our list custodian's gentle reminder. Larry Darby wrote on 01/03/2006 10:54:41 AM: Like too many Americans, you apparently are not as informed as to the issues as others. Like too many people of all nationalities, you appartenly do not realize that disagreeing with you is not synonymous with being uninformed. The decades of brain-warping by media for the masses, government-run schools and political correctness had made certain issues or discussing certain issues taboo. You presume a great deal with regard to the sources I use to inform my beliefs. That being said, discussing the holocaust is certainly not taboo, but neither is identifying bigotry and foolishness and pointing them out as such. Resorting to calling me names just wont work. When you speak as a bigot, you should not be surprised when people identify you as such. If it walks like a duck . I do not bow down to semantic terrorism deployed to quash discussion of fact or mythology regarding mass deaths of innocents during World War Two. Semantic terrorism? Nonsense. Nobody is trying to quash any foolishness you wish to spout. (For the record, nobody wants to quash any reasonable assertions you wish to make either, but I, for one, am still waiting to see you make one of those.) But part of a discussion forum such as this one is that, when you speak nonsense, you should expect to be called on it. If I were to say the world was flat, I would anticipate the same. Its sorta like the man in New Jersey said, These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures. - Chairman, New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education (Newark Star-Ledger, 23 Oct. 1996, p 15) Once again, you have taken a single quote out of context, just as you did with the Einstein quote (and many thanks to Perry Dane for exposing the distortion as such). A person actually asked Steven Some (the aforementioned chairman) about this quote, and this was his response: It really is incredible how these idiots can take what you say out of context. However, rest assured, my comments were the following, These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything THEY say with facts and figures. Yes, I should have added alleged facts and figures, however, I did refer to what THEY say. Therefore, I feel comfortable with the comment because my implication is the facts and figures according to them, which of course are entirely false. (http://www.talkaboutculture.com/group/soc.culture.usa/messages/1592164.html) Needless to say, after distorting Einstein's words and then distorting the above quote as well, you make it abundantly clear that you simply cannot be taken at your word. If you tell me the sun rises in the east, I will look out the window to see it for myself. And for this lack of credibility and trustworthiness, you have only yourself to blame. Brad Pardee___ 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: Dover Case Questions
Perry wrote on 12/21/2005 01:54:14 PM: It is therefore consistent with at least the bare bones of ID theory that the designer was evil, or a practical joker, or a child-god who designed us as part of the heavenly equivalent of a kindergarten art project. Or that an omniscient God who knows more than we do had a reason for creating us this way that is no more apparent to us than it is apparent to a 3 year old why he can't play with a lit candle. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Dover Intelligent-Design Case
The judge wrote, Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Has there ever been a Court that admitted that it WAS activist? Is there a decision somewhere that says, This Court is proud to admit that it is an activist Court, and thank you for noticing? Rick may be on to something when he says, The Bard might have said: The judge doth protest too much, methinks. And maybe it's just my untrained eye, but when I see a judge referring to the defendandts as liars and breathtakingly inane, I find myself wondering how that is part of his job. His job is to interpret the law, not to assess the moral fitness of people whose arguments he did not agree with. If he thinks they're right, say so. If he thinks they're wrong, say so. (And if he truly believes they were lying and that this isn't just extreme rhetorical excess, can I assume perjury charges will be forthcoming?) The snippets posted by Ann make me seriously doubt the judge's impartiality and temperament, and I'm not sure I'd want him judging pecan pies at the County Fair, much less matters of serious Constitutional import. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Atheist group demands removal of memorials
An atheist advocacy group sued the Utah Highway Patrol and Utah Department of Transportation on Thursday seeking the removal of large steel cross memorials from state property that honor troopers killed in the line of duty. American Atheists Inc. contends the placement of the crosses, which carry the Highway Patrol's beehive logo, in state rights of way is an unconstitutional promotion of Christianity. http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=70134___ 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: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked
Shameful and shocking. This is the story as it appeared in the KU campus newspaper. http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/06/mirecki/ I completely agree with the following quote from the article: Sen. Kay OConnor (R-Olathe), who has strongly criticized Mirecki for his e-mails, said whoever beat him should be prosecuted to the fullest. If they try to cover themselves under the mantle of being Christian or being Christian people, sorry Charlie, she said. Theyre just thugs.___ 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: Swedish Pastor Beats Hate Crime Rap
I was under the impression that free speech was considered a universal human right, not merely an American notion, regardless of whether governments acknowledge it as such or not. And I cannot even begin to conceive of a good and sufficient reason for putting people in jail because they have expressed the teachings of their faith about what behaviors are right and what behaviors are wrong. Brad Michael Newsom wrote: Shouldnt we be careful in applying American notions of free speech to other cultures and traditions? Sweden may have had good and sufficient reasons for taking a different position on the question. I would be curious to know if the Swedish Court relied at all on American cases. ___ 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: Swedish Pastor Beats Hate Crime Rap
I agree completely. I actually wrote a piece about the problems of hate crime legislation a few years ago myself (http://www.geocities.com/onemanwatching/archive/se292000.html). William Raspberry (a columnist I rarely find myself agreeing with) also wrote a column about it as well (http://www.crimelynx.com/hatecr.html). Hate crime laws are a classic example of good intentions leading to very bad ideas. Brad P.S. The link to Raspberry's column in my e-zine is apparently broken. The above link will work. Larry Darby wrote: Thats wonderful news about Pastor Ake. Ive been following these abominations called hate crime laws for quite some time. Theyre a threat to our Republic and the American way of life. If the USA and the States dont begin to repeal so-called hate crime laws well follow the benighted lead of Germany, Austria, France, Czech Republic, Canada and a few more countries where one can be imprisoned for offending the ruling class. ___ 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: RE:creationsim redux
Marc, I think it is a victory (albeit a very small one) for ID supporters because it means a textbook publisher had the nerve to acknowledge that many people do not believe in evolution. And Americans United is undoubtedly unhappy that not every publisher is drinking the koolaid. Marty, Isn't it possible that this is somewhat less Machiavellian than you are describing? It's not about providing students with a fuller understanding of the diversity of religious beliefs or undermining science. It's as Marc described it: simply an acknowledgment that not everybody believes in evolution, and that those who don't believe in evolution, demographically speaking, are largely viewing the matter from a religious perspective. Marc wrote: Supporters of ID are claiming victory; and Americans United is complaining that the wall of separation is falling. I feel stupid because I see nothing of ID in this description, merely factual descriptions of peoples beliefs. What am I missing that the activists see? Marty replied: Marc: Might it have something to do with the fact that the statement appears in a biology text, rather than in a comparative religions text, and that therefore the foreseeable -- and, dare I surmise, intended -- effect of the statement is not to provide the students with a fuller understanding of the diversity of religious beliefs, but instead to call into question, and to undermine, the actual science information that appears on pages 1-387 and 389f?___ 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: RE:creationsim redux
Marty, My apologies if you felt the _expression_ I used was in poor taste and inappropriate. While I view the _expression_ differently, I can understand why a person would view it as you do, and I'll refrain from using it here again. As to the biology text in question, it's certainly appropriate, given the numbers of people who do not believe in evolution, to take three sentences out of a 400 page textbook to say that not everybody buys into evolution. The alternative is to paint a picture for students of a unanimity of thought that simply does not exist. Brad Marty wrote: Brad: I think drinking the koolaid is in extremely poor taste in virtually any setting, but is especially inappropriate here, considering where the phrase originated and the subject of this thread. I did not mean to suggest anything Machiavellian. But I also do not think that the text in question is simply an acknowledgment that not everybody believes in evolution, and that those who don't believe in evolution, demographically speaking, are largely viewing the matter from a religious perspective. No such acknowledgment is necessary -- I'm confident that virtually every student in the Broward County high schools is aware that not everybody believes in evolution, and that such non-belief, more often than not, is a function of religious belief. That's why it would seem fairly silly -- and completely inapposite to the biology course -- if the book actually said: Not everybody believes in evolution, and that those who don't believe in evolution, demographically speaking, are largely viewing the matter from a religious perspective. Students would, with good reason, wonder what that statement was doing in a biology text. But that's not the statement. Marc is correct that the text doesn't pass off religious belief as science. But it would appear to present the religious belief as relevant to the scientific information appearing on the surrounding pages -- i.e., as suggesting to students that perhaps it is the case that the complex structures and processes of life could not have formed without some guiding intelligence. I don't know whether that's an EC violation; but I'm fairly certain it's unjustifiable from a scientific perspective, and thus an inadvisable and unfortunate curricular decision. ___ 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: Custody and religion - non believers are going to hell
Joel Sogol wrote on 11/22/2005 05:16:14 AM: The Alabama Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision granting a Madison County father custody of his 6-year-old daughter, based in part on evidence the child had been beaten and alienated from her family. The only relevant thing I saw here in terms of custody was the assertion that the child had been beaten. The article, though, later refers to it as corporal punishment, which I've always understood to mean a spanking, which is a far, far cry from a beating. If the child was truly beaten, then, without question, the child should be removed from the mother's custody. If the child merely received a spanking, then that's no reason to take the child away from the mother. There are a couple things in this article that are more troubling to me from the standpoint of religious freedom: The Sniders also told the child her father and maternal grandfather are 'going to hell,' even though the Sniders knew the father and grandfather 'are loved and cared for very much by the child,' according to trial court documents. The trial court said the mother, Laura Snider, should be teaching religion 'by example,' and not in a way that would be disparaging or critical of the father's beliefs. The question of whether or not a person is going to hell is a theological question. Some would answer it one way, some would answer it another. It's got nothing to do with whether that person is loved and cared for. And how does the trial court justify telling any parent what means they should use to teach their children religion? If the mother's faith teaches that the father's beliefs are wrong, is she supposed to lie to the child or pretend that it doesn't matter? I do hope the mother takes this back to the trial court to raise the religious issues (if the beatings were actually only spankings). The trial court is setting a precedent here that is seems clearly hostile to the beliefs of any evangelcial that would comes before it, and I can't imagine how the judge telling the mother how to practice her faith could be anything less than an unconstitutional entanglement that violates the establishment clause. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: From the list custodian RE: Discrimination
Eugene wrote on 11/21/2005 11:18:15 AM: For instance, does it mean Congress shall make no law totally prohibiting all religion, so that no religion may be practiced? If so, Congress could outlaw Catholicism, on the theory that it's not prohibiting religion generally, only one religion. For those who would see Eugene's hypotethical example as something that would never happen, this is, in fact, the logic used by the the Fifth Circuit in the case of Xiaodong Li, whose request for asylum was inexplicably opposed by the US Attorney General's office. http://www.usaforunhcr.org/usaforunhcr/archives.cfm?ID=3298catID=2) According to the article, the Circuit felt there was no persecution involved [b]ecause the Chinese government tolerates Christianity, so long as it's practiced in a registered group. For this, the Circuit (as well as the the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Dept. of Homeland Security) was roundly, and rightly, excoriated. If the Free Exercise clause was interpreted according to the above hypothetical, though, it would not only vindicate the Circuit Court but it would establish the same freedomless standard for U.S. citizens. Thankfully, the Dept. of Homeland Security has withdrawn its appeal, and the Fifth Circuit has vacated its decision. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/012/8.20.html Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Bible study ban for RA's in UW-Eau Claire dorms
To me, this ban seems rather difficult to justify. To say that an RA can't host a bible study in his home on campus is absurd. They try to say that the RA could host it off-campus, but that if the studies continued, students might not find them 'approachable' or might fear they'd be 'judged or pushed in a direction that does not work for them.' That's not a question of where the Bible study is held but rather whether the RA is hosting it. If a student is honestly going to feel an RA is unapproachable because they lead a Bible study in their dorm room, are they going to automatically view the RA as approachable if the RA leads the exact same study but in a different location? It strikes me as an illogical argument. I know that there are those here who have proposed that some of the excesses of educational institutions in limiting religious speech are grounded in either the fear of costly litigation or a mistaken believe that the limitations are required. I don't see either of those benign errors here, though. http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov05/368030.asp http://www.gazetteextra.com/bibleban110405.asp Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious ...
Jim Henderson wrote on 11/04/2005 12:39:02 PM: I found the NYAG's myopic failure to recognize the value of hospitals, universities, savings and loan institutions, soup kitchens, vocational rehabilitation programs, benevolence funds, etc., to be offensive. It sort of reminds me of the old question: If you're walking down a dark street at night, and you realize that a group of teenagers are about half-a-block behind you, do you feel safer if you know that they are on their way home from a Bible study as opposed to a party or a rock concert? I think most people would say, yes, we probably do. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
Michael, Isn't it possible that the justices will simply advance what they believe the law to say? It sounds like you are suggesting that they all lack the integrity to rule justly based on existing law, regardless of whether or not their faith teaches that the law is right. I know that, as an evangelical Protestant, I don't want people on the court saying What does evangelical Protestantism teach? and ruling accordingly. I want them to rule based on what the law says, whether it lines up with evangelical Protestant thought or not. It then falls to people like me to elect representatives who will pass laws that I believe are right. It's not generally the Court's job to make that assessment, though. Brad Michael wrote: It is indeed probable that we will have five right-wing Roman Catholics on the Court, an astounding event. One way to think about this is to ask whether they represent normative American Catholic social, legal, and political thought. If they do then one might conclude that they will advance the interests of the Church at least as much as the interests of the Protestant Empire. If they do not represent normative American Catholic social, legal, and political thought, then one might reasonably conclude that they were selected by evangelical Protestants to do the work of the Protestant Empire, work which may not necessarily advance the interests of the Church. . . .Again, it is the nature or the parameters of the interest-convergence that is all-important in assessing this remarkable turn of events: five Roman Catholics doing the work of the Protestant Empire (whether or not they are also doing the work of the Church which in and of itself is an important question) and two Protestant/Protestant-heritage justices and two Jewish/Jewish-heritage justices seeking to keep the Protestant Empire in check. ___ 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.
Stephen Carter on what Christians should expect from the Supreme Court
An excellent article, in my opinion, one that those on both the right and the left would do well to consider. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/18.96.html Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
Joel, Not that Rick needs me to defend him, but I don't think this is a fair characterization of what Rick has said. He's been quite explicit that, if a person doesn't want to discuss the issue, then nobody should force the discussion. And he hasn't even come close to suggesting that there is any justification for physically abusing children. It would seem to me that fair-mindedness requires a response to what he has actually advocated instead of something he has never advocated and I think I can confidently say, never would. Brad Joel wrote: Rick will continue to say my children must be hassled and in some cases physically abused as the cost of public school accommodation to free speech and the religion clause.___ 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 beginning of the end of religious freedom in Venezuela
Venezuela's President Chavez has announced that they will be expelling missionaries working with New Tribes Missions. I was afraid that he might use Pat Robertson's remarks as a justification for something like this. That, of course, doesn't make Chavez's action legitimate. It just gave him PR cover among the uneducated and uninformed. At any rate, there are two articles about this. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/141/53.0.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/142/32.0.html Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
I haven't heard this story in the news anywhere, but given the media's general distaste for anything evangelical, I'm not surprised. The sad thing is that it takes litigation (or the threat thereof) to compel universities to do the right thing. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/5.25.html Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Marty Lederman wrote on 10/19/2005 11:34:46 AM: Yes, of course, the private club has a right (although not a constitutional one, I'd argue) to exclude from membership any persons who are sexually active outside marriage (which is what the settlement apparently involves). As I read the settlement description, though, they ARE able to exclude from membership any persons who are sexually active outside marriage. They have drawn a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and according to the lawyer for CLS, this is what we asked for in the lawsuit. The question at issue, however, is not membership, as such, but instead the group's eligibility to be recognized by the university, and to be given the public perqs that come with such recognition. I don't know what it's like at ASU, but at the University of Nebraska, where I work, official recognition isn't so much about public perq as much as it is about the ability to function on campus. If your group is not recognized, there are limitations on being able to advertise your group's activities, your group can't reserve a meeting room on campus, and so on and so forth. Those hardly qualify as perqs but rather the essentials of being able to function. ASU has decided, like most schools, that it will not afford such recognition and perqs to any groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation -- on the quite reasonable theory that ASU does not wish to facilitate, or be party to, any activities for which a percentage of its student body would be ineligible by virtue of their sexual orientation. Every campus has a percentage of its student body which would be ineligible for membership in some organizations. Are the College Republicans required to be allowed to join the College Democrats and serve in leadership? Is a campus pro-life group required to accept members who are actively involved in preserving the legal right to an abortion? Is an organization of Jewish students required to accept members who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.? Of course not. So why should the Christian organizations be the only organizations that are forced to accept members who don't subscribe to the group's beliefs? Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
No exception is needed. Simply a statement applying to all groups saying that groups are not required to accept members who do not subscribe to the beliefs central to the mission of the group. That would not only protect the ability of campus religious groups to be faithful to the tenets of their faith, but it also protects non-religious groups, such as ensuring that College Republicans (or Democrats) are, in fact, Republicans (or Democrats). Basic freedom of association at the very least, not to mention freedom of religion for the religious student organizations. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 04:44:14 PM: On Oct 19, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: Every campus has a percentage of its student body which would be ineligible for membership in some organizations. Are the College Republicans required to be allowed to join the College Democrats and serve in leadership? Is a campus pro-life group required to accept members who are actively involved in preserving the legal right to an abortion? Is an organization of Jewish students required to accept members who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.? Of course not. So why should the Christian organizations be the only organizations that are forced to accept members who don't subscribe to the group's beliefs? Not so. All organizations are limited on what grounds they can exclude members. Why do those who cry treat us the same as other groups now demand an exception?___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU
Apples and oranges. Race and gender are not behaviors. The CLS clearly said that they did not seek to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation but rather on the basis of their sexual behavior, regardless of orientation. What you describe is a situation where a Christian group is prohibited from living out its faith unless their faith's tenets of what constitutes godly behavior are approved of by the campus administration. And comparing the belief that sexual behavior belongs solely between a husband and wife to white supremacism sets the stage for saying that no Christian group can require godly behavior because others might define godly behavior differently. So much for free exercise. If your reference to generally appicable laws is referring to Employment Division v. Smith, then that would explain our disagreement. I believe that the Supreme Court gutted the free exercise clause in Smith and reduced it to anti-discrimination protection, and that does not bode well for religious freedom. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 05:48:36 PM: A generally applicable law or policy applies generally. So saith the Supreme Court, or so I thought. You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, even if you want to form a white supremacist group. Or if your religion says that you should as a central belief. Or that it says you should exclude women from any association with men outside the bedroom. Or whatever. Now you want an exception from the general rule. That is an exception. Not all central tenets of all groups need to be accommodated. Including religious ones. Steve___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: New lawsuit against U Cal Berkeley
Ed wrote on 10/18/2005 02:55:42 PM: If a student asks whether evolution contradicts with religion, what possible answer could a teacher give other than something like, Opinions vary. Some religious views are incompatible with it and some are not, but the fact that there are thousands of devoutly religious scientists who also work in the field of evolution clearly means they aren't inherently at odds with one another When I read this possible answer, everything from but the fact on seems clearly tilted to support those who see religion and evolution as compatible. For this to be a responsible and respectful answer, it would need to end with and some are not. Whether that is necessary to fulfill constitutional obligations is another question. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
I think we're reading the wording differently. It came across to me as a request for a prohibition of attempting to do four things; 1) involuntarily convert, 2) pressure, 3) exhort, and 4) persuade. If they meant to have involuntarily apply to all four activities, then we would be in agreement that it isn't appropriate. Hopefully, as the litigation runs its course, the wording in the news coverage would be clarified so that we will understand more precisely what the plaintiff is asking for. Brad Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/2005 11:14 AM Please respond to Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu cc Subject Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Brad, let me quote what you quoted: On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: 2) The lawsuit asks the Air Force to prohibit its members including chaplains from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.' emphasis added by me. Isn't this exactly the standard you are asking for? Does it not allow voluntary discussions of the type you want? I also think you are overestimating the internal strength of most people, armed forces leaders included, if you think a senior cadet or any teacher is not in an inherently superior position to a new recruit, or even another student peer. I think you may also be underestimating the effect of years of propaganda on even the most internally focused person. People can be persuaded by constant refrain of many heinous things, let alone by more seemingly benign promises of salvation. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on. Robert Frost ___ 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: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Chip, Denigration would need to be clearly defined. I know that there are those who would say that it is denigrating to simply say you believe a person's faith is wrong, but there's an important distinction. When two different religions teach things that are mutually exclusive, then either one of them is wrong or they are both wrong, but they can't both be right. The best example is the teaching of my own faith that Jesus rose from the dead. If somebody is a member of a faith which does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then intellectual honesty requires them to say that they believe my faith is wrong, and that doesn't denigrate me. It simply acknowledges that we believe different things to be true. If they move on to say, And consequently, anybody who believes in the resurrection is an idiot, that's when it becomes denigration. Even when it is a governmental entity such as a military academy, drawing the distinction between disagreement and denigration keeps the institution from having to choose between the Establishment Clause on the one hand and the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses on the other. Brad Chip Lupu wrote on 10/07/2005 12:21:13 PM: But in that sort of highly controlled environment, the government should be unusually sensitive to religious harassment -- that is, unwanted conversion efforts, or denigration of the faiths of fellow cadets (by students or anyone else). Chip Lupu ___ 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.
Air Force sued over religious intolerance
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/academy_religion A couple things particularly caught my attention in this article. 1) There have been complaints at the academy that a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and that another Jew was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet. I've been an evangelical for over 25 years, and I've never heard any evangelical even hint that the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus. Nor have I ever head an evangelical refer to Jews as Christ killers. I know that terrible things like these are said, but they certainly aren't a part of any evangelical theology I've ever heard. It feels similar to those who would portray Fred Phelps as being representative of all people who believe homosexual behavior is wrong or those who would portray abortion clinic bombers as being representative of all pro-lifers. Makes my cynical side a little suspicious. 2) The lawsuit asks the Air Force to prohibit its members including chaplains from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.' While it's a given that nobody should be required to discuss religious matters against their will, there shouldn't be a problem with people discussing these matters with those who are willing. Unless they are going to ban all non-work related conversation while on duty, I don't how they could single out one subject and say that such conversations are forbidden, even when all parties to the conversation are agreeable. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Steve, It may be that I've been fortunate in the people I've had around me. I was raised Presbyterian, and I don't remember hearing anything said there about Jews at all unless we were talking about Old Testament history and things like that. As an evangelical, I've heard that there were individuals, some of whom were Roman and some of whom were Jewish, who brought about the death of Christ, and that only those specific individuals could be held accountable for those actions. I've heard that the Holocaust was about Satan's unending hatred for the people with whom God had made a covenant going back to Abraham. As I said, though, it may be that I've simply been fortunate in the people I've had around me. As far as the second item goes, nobody should be harassed or marginalized. The action being requested by the plaintiff, though, seems to go beyond righting those wrongs. While the hierarachy of the military certainly present different challenges in this matter than those of us in civillian life face, there should be a way to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We should be able to find a way, within the constraints of the military hierarchy, to permit conversations that are freely entered into by all parties without jeopardizing the rights of those who do not wish to discuss the subject from being made unwilling participants. Brad Steven Jamar wrote: I'm surprised that you've never heard any evangelical state the Holocaust was revenge for killing Jesus or refer to Jews as Christ killers. I have heard such from Catholics, traditional denominational Christians, and evangelical Christians. At one time it was official Catholic church doctrine, if I recall my religious history correctly, and from there the idea continued on even long after the doctrine was abandoned. The second item recognizes voluntary/involuntary conversation distinction you are making -- or am I misreading it? I have also found that what some evangelicals consider mere witnessing comes across to me and even more so to many others as inappropriate, or at least unwanted evangelizing or proselytizing. In a rigid hierarchy like the military where superior rank is based on when your papers were signed giving you your rank, this can be a serious problem in a practical way. I think the problem did not arise from one or two or even a dozen cadets meeting together, publicizing meetings, or one-on-one witnessing. It arose, as I understand it, from creating a pervasive culture in which the non-evangelical students were harassed and marginalized from officers from the top (or near the top) down. It happened when the majority started to oppress the minority. Steve___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Marci, My concern is about this case is that the plaintiff's request seems to go beyond addressing the problem that is described. It's one thing to prohibit attempts to involuntarily convert [and] pressure the cadets, and those should be prohibited. A prohibition on attempts to exhort or persuade without a clear statement that conversations among willing participants are permitted would, however, swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. We shouldn't correct one wrong by creating another. As far as the atheist being ordered to attend religious services is concerned, that makes no sense to me. I can't fathom a line of reasoning that would justify it. Even if the commanding officers were trying to evangelize soldiers such as the one you describe (which would clearly be a first amendment violation if the attendance was ordered), it would be foolish from a strictly practical standpoint. You aren't going to persuade anybody with an argument you force them to listen to against their will. All you do is give them good reason to be resentful. Brad Marci wrote: Steve is right that this is a case involving the creation of an intolerant atmosphere where there was a pervasive atmosphere skewed toward evangelicals engaging in proselytizing. Conversations are one thing, but an institutinally-sanctioned, pervasive regime where those who are not evangelicals feel set upon or disenfranchised is deeply troubling in the military, which should be a gathering of any and all believers united in defending the U.S. On a related note, I spoke to someone whose brother just came back from Iraq. He is an atheist and he was ordered to attend religious services on a weekly basis at a minimum. He found it extremely coercive, but there was no sense among his commanding officers that there was any harm caused by forcing him to participate in religious activities. Marci ___ 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: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Alan, I think it would all depend on the nature of the relationship. I can look to my own experience on this. While in high school, it was a teacher who first shared the gospel with me. Some would consider that impermissable. In hindsight, though, I can say without question that, when my parents divorced six months later, I would have undoubtedly killed myself, so I would say that she saved my life. I had a friendship with her, though, that made such a conversation permissible. There were other teachers with whom I was not friends, and in those cases, the conversation would not have been permissible. I think that's the problem with one-size-fits-all solutions which fail to take into account the differing nature of relationships between different persons. Another significant point is that you say you would never initiate a conversation. Suppose, however, in the course of casual conversation, the subject comes up, initiated by the student. Would you still consider it impermissible? Finally, I don't think it should be that difficult to lay down guidlines to ensure that any subordinate is free to be as willing or unwilling as they wish to be. Suppose, as a hypothetical, that an officer makes it clear that he thinks a real man goes into town on weekend liberty to go drinking and chasing women. Would the subordinate have a claim if he didn't feel free to be unwilling to hear the officer's exhortations? If not, then why would the subordinate have a claim when the subject is religion? If so, then that speaks poorly about the internal strength of the people in our military forces. Brad Alan Brownstein wrote: Brad, Would you agree that in a situation where one individual is in a position of authority over another that attempts to exhort or persuade are impermissible. As a law professor at a public university, I would never initiate a conversation with one of my students in an attempt to exhort or persuade him to change his religious beliefs. In the military, the situation is much more coercive. An allegedly willing subordinate who is exhorted to adopt the religious beliefs of a superior officer may not have felt free to be unwilling to hear the officers exhortations. Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ 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.
FEMA to reimburse faith groups for helping victims
Based on what they are describing in this article, this sounds like it should qualify as a secular purpose that doesn't excessively tangle church and state. Does it seem likely to pass Constitutional muster in your opinions (separate from whether you believe it SHOULD pass Constitutional muster)? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050927/us_nm/hurricanes_fema_religious_dc Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Diplomatic relations, the Holy See, and the Establishment Clause
There is an AP story on Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050920/ap_on_re_eu/pope_sued) about a priest sexual abuse case in Texas which raises First Amendment questions I've not heard discussed before. According to the article, The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See. What struck me as particularly interesting in this case is that the plaintiff's lawyer, according to the article, would challenge the constitutionality of the U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Holy See on the grounds that it goes against the First Amendment's 'establishment clause' that bars any laws respecting the establishment of religion. Does this challenge have any real chance of succeeding? I've heard of the pope being sued in these cases before, but I've never heard anybody suggest that it was possible to get around the head of state immunity by saying it was unconstitutional to have the diplomatic recognition. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Roberts hearing webcast
If you're not able to watch tv during the day but can listen online, the Roberts hearing is being webcast live at http://www.kcet.org Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
U.S. Denies Asylum for Persecuted Chinese Christian
If the present administration expects to be seen as an advocate for religious freedom, it had better intervene on behalf of Mr. Li. This story is from Christianity Today. Brad U.S. Denies Asylum for Persecuted Chinese Christian Court believes Christian's story, says China has the right to maintain social order. by Boaz Herzog | posted 09/06/2005 09:30 a.m. For more than five years, Xiaodong Li and about half a dozen friends gathered weekly in their hometown of Ningbo, China, to study the Bible and sing hymns. Then one Sunday morning in April 1995, in the middle of one of the services inside Li's apartment, three cops stormed in, handcuffed Li, and escorted him to the local police station. The officers grabbed his hair and kicked his legs, forcing him to kneel. They hit and shocked him with an electronic black baton until he confessed two hours later to organizing an underground church. Later, they locked him inside a windowless, humid cell with six other inmates until his friend and uncle bailed him out five days later. After his release, police forced him to clean public toilets 40 hours a week without pay. He lost his job as a hotel spokesman. Li, 22 at the time, likely faced two years in prison. A court hearing was set for later that year. Li began plotting an escape. He applied for a visa. Unaware of Li's looming trial, a government agency issued him a passport. And on November 4, 1995, Li left the country. Two months later, a Carnival Cruise Lines ship docked in Miami. Li, a food server on board, walked off and never returned. He moved to Houston, hoping to go back to his homeland when China's government eased religious restrictions. Instead, conditions worsened. His friend was imprisoned for participating in their underground church. And police interrogated Li's family, who still live in China, after receiving Bibles, religious magazines, and newspapers that Li had sent them. In 1999, Li applied for asylum on the grounds that the Chinese government had persecuted him for his religious beliefs. He missed the application deadline, but an immigration judge agreed with his arguments, granting him a status that allowed him to remain in the United States until conditions in China improved. But in 2003, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the judge's decision. It ruled that Li was punished for violating laws on unregistered churches that it said China has a legitimate right to enforce. Li, the board concluded, feared legal action or prosecution, not persecution. In August, a three-judge panel of the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the board's ruling. The decision has alarmed refugee and religious-freedom advocates. They say the ruling, unless overturned, will make it much more difficult for future asylum-seekers to prove religious persecution. The appeals court decision sends a chilling message that the United States is beginning to turn its back on people fleeing religious persecution, said Dori Dinsmore, the former advocacy director for World Relief, an international organization that assists refugees. Last year, U.S. immigration courts completed about 65,000 applications for asylum. Of those cases, about 20 percent of the applicants were granted asylum, the plurality of which came from China. Asylum allows refugees to work in the United States and later apply for permanent residence. To gain asylum, applicants must prove they are refugees escaping persecution because of their nationality, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, race, or religion. Ultimately, Dinsmore told CT, the Fifth Circuit's ruling means that many more asylum applicants will be deported back into the hands of the people persecuting them. The ruling has broad implications for worshipers across the globe. Ann Buwalda, founder and executive director of human-rights group Jubilee Campaign USA, told CT that adherents of other faiths could soon be denied U.S. asylum because some of their religious practices are considered illegal in their homelands. For example, she pointed to persecuted practitioners of Falun Gong exercises in China, and Muslims who convert to Christianity in Iran. Essentially, Buwalda said of the Fifth Circuit ruling, you've removed religion as a basis of gaining asylum. Chris Bentley, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau, declined to comment on the impact Li's case could have on other asylum applicants. The agency is reviewing the judges' decision, and then we'll take appropriate actions, Bentley said. Li's Houston-based attorney, Garrett White, said his client, now 32, plans to appeal, both to the full ring of Fifth Circuit judges and to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Alliance Defense Fund has joined Garrett as co-counsel. Persecution a 'Moral Judgment, Not a Legal One' That an immigration judge on up to the Fifth Circuit found Li's story of prosecution credible makes it all the more
RE: Every Idea is an Incitement
It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? Brad Marc wrote on 09/02/2005 09:08:41 AM: Apparently academics are not the only ones whose surroundings blind them to understand just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their perception of the Establishment Clause has on others. Jim seems not to understand at all the objection and offense felt by person entitled to attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs. ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
A couple of thoughts. First, although a case can be made that the establishment prohibition prevents the school from directing a person to give a religious address, I was always under the impression that a commencement speaker is representing their own views, not those of the school. For example, if the person speaks out against the war in Iraq, it would not be understood as the school district endorsing their views of the war, so there shouldn't be an establishment violation if the person references religion, which should similarly not be understood as the views of the school district. Second, Marc's post that I was responding to referred to the objection and offense felt by person entitled to attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs. He didn't refer to an establishment violation but rather objection and offense. My observation was that people attending commencement ceremonies are going to hear things to which they object or take offense, yet nobody has suggested that objection or offense is a basis for censoring any viewpoints other than religious ones. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 09/02/2005 09:55:59 AM: On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote: It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? Maybe its because of the special status of religion in the constitution -- i.e., the prohibition of establishment? Steve ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Floodwaters and Undermined Walls
I'm not sure there is anything the governor could have done in the time it took to issue a call to prayer that wasn't already being done. And in time of crisis, like 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina or anything else of such a devastating magnitude, there are many of us who find a call to prayer as recognizing that there are more needs than just the material down-to-earth ones. The provision of material needs tells me that my leaders are aware of shortages and doing their job to meet them. The call to prayer tells me that the leaders' hearts are with me as well. Brad P.S. Regarding the eficacy of prayer, for reasons we may not know, God doesn't always say yes to everything we ask, but that's a subject for another list. Paul Finkelman wrote on 09/01/2005 01:26:54 PM: One might think that instead of spending time issuing calls for prayer, the governor would focus on more down-to-earth matters. The call for prayers also of course raises a different practial question. When I moved to Oklahoma the state was in the middle of huge drought, with no rain for months. Rather than call for water conservation, the governor called on everyone to pray for rain the next Sunday (apparently the Gov. did not think God heard the prayers of Jews, Moslems, or Adventists). Despite the huge humber of churches in this state, and I presume many prayers for rain, there was no rain and the drought continued. So miuch for the efficacy of prayer.! I suspect that our many friends in Louisian and Mississippi would rather have bottled water or another bus to get out of the city than prayers. Paul Finkelman ___ 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: Hostility
Michael Newsom wrote: The relevant question is whether students at religious schools that proselytize socialize less well than others. Inner city Catholic schools do not proselytize their non-Catholic students. The fact of racial and religious tension in all too many public schools is a given. But this suggests that we ought to address the problem head on. Getting schools committed to proselytizing also to teach toleration and respect for diversity is a tall order. Therefore, I am convinced that it would be easier to generate more toleration and respect for diversity in public schools than in proselytizing religious schools. A couple of questions, if I may, to clarify what you're saying here, because I don't want to misunderstand you. 1) Is there a distinction in what you're describing between evangelism and proseltyzing? Some people use the terms differently, and some use them interchangably. 2) Are you suggesting that evangelism is inherently intolerant? Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Mean hoax (these things happen too often)
Particularly susceptible? Is this like when the Washington Post said that followers of the religious right are largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command? The FACT is that there are a ton of e-mail hoaxes out there. I get them sent to me. Things like this as well as warnings about a tax on e-mail or offers from Microsoft that will earn you money for everyone you forward an e-mail to, etc. Not all (or even most) of the hoaxes I get have anything to do with the Christian nation. Rather than it being about the general low intellect of conservative Christians that you seem to be inferring, it's about people IN GENERAL not checking chain e-mails at Snopes or similar sites. People get e-mails from friends and family and assume the information is correct. But that is by no means unique to the rank and file of the religious right. Could it be your response says more about the stereotypes you are holding than about who does or doesn't forward chain e-mails without checking them out? Brad Pardee Ed Brayton wrote: This is an old hoax. I've had it forwarded to me probably a dozen times over the last few years and even took the time to debunk it on my blog, as have many others. For some reason, the rank and file of the religious right seem particularly susceptible to this sort of nonsense and they tend to forward them on with all the appropriate howls of outrage to all of their friends and family. There are also probably a dozen different variations of the Christian Nation email that is forwarded among the same people, complete with a dozen or so fake quotations allegedly from the founding fathers and lots of historical ignorance.___ 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: Court's Kelo Decision Puts Religious Property at Risk
Somebody else has also told me that it was in the news at the time. I try to stay aware of these cases in the news, and I hadn't heard anything, unlike Employment Division Vs. Smith, Boerne Vs. Flores, and cases like that. That being the case, if you tell me it was in the news, I'll take your word for it. At any rate, I didn't think it was a liberal press cover up as much as it was a liberal press really doesn't care. Kind of like Buonanno v. ATT Broadband, which didn't get anywhere near the coverage it would've if the plaintiff had been a member of a group the liberal press does care about. (And this one I've looked for.) Brad Marci wrote on 08/16/2005 04:13:32 PM: When it was decided, which is a while ago, the Cottonwood case was reported on everywhere. There was no liberal press cover up. Marci In a message dated 8/16/2005 11:26:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interesting article. This kind of thing is exactly what I was concerned about after Kelo was handed down. I'm glad to see that RLIUPA is protecting the churches, but that fact that it's necessary says something about the idea that local governments could generally be trusted to do the right thing. I also find it interesting that I'd never heard anything in the news about the Cottonwood/Costco/Cypress story. I can only wonder, if they had tried to sieze land belonging to Planned Parenthood instead of a church, would the media silence have been the same? Brad ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: religiously-motivated political strife
Steve Jamar wrote on 08/04/2005 10:04:08 AM: On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Rick Duncan wrote: The doctrine of salvationby grace through faith in Christ is a doctrine of love and forgiveness. It is not an intolerant doctrine. It is open to everyone. When people say that theirs is the only way and all others are damned to hell, that is not exactly my idea of tolerance. When a group says we are the only chosen ones, similar problem, though less in-your-face. When a group says this is the one true religion and we have the last word from god and others are infidels, similar problem again. What you are suggesting here, though, is a very slippery slope that could easily have extraordinarily chilling effect on religious freedom. There are alreday those who would advocate stripping away constitutional guarantees of free speech to anything deemed hate speech. When we here some of the racial epithets or similarly vile rants that are far too common in our culture, it's easy to say (as some have), Sure, we should stoof that. I mean, who wouldn't oppose that kind of stuff? How long, though, will it take before Rick's _expression_ above is called hate speech because it was deemed intolerant? The other problem with this is that it misunderstands the motivation that is described intolerance. I'll use an evangelical Christian as an example, since I am one myself. If I express the belief that some people are damned to hell if they reject Christ, I'm no more choosing who will or won't be damned than the weatherman who predicts rainfall is choosing who will or won't get rain. I'm looking at the sources I believe to be authoritative and assessing what they say. I have people dear to me that, as I understand what God has said, are headed to hell. If the choosing was up to me, I'd choose to save them every time. But I'm not God and I don't get to set the criteria. All I can do is try to understand what that criteria is. At the risk of seeming redundant, how long before declaring this to be intolerance leads to a deterioration in religious freedom. A concete example would be Buonanno v. ATT Broadband (313 F. Supp. 2d 1069, if I'm reading the decision on Lexis Nexis correctly). Fortunately, the judge ruled in defense of his supposedly guaranteed religious freedom. One can only wonder, though, if ATT had reached the same result but done more to explore the issue first, would religious freedom still have prevailed? (And is anybody else surprise that this case received little or not press coverage?) Brad Pardee___ 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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Art Spitzer wrote on 08/03/2005 01:34:26 PM: (I hope no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does, he or she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.) I can understand what you might not agree with ID. I can even understand why you might be offended by the way in which some people have advocated it. I cannot, however, understand how you can find ID offensive. Although I have not agreed with everything the advocates of evolution have said here, I never found their belief in evolution offensive. What you have posted here, however, IS offensive because its sole purpose is to mock the people you don't agree with. Making fun of people we don't agree with or don't approve of may have a place in a late night talk show monologue or an editorial cartoon. But it has no place in any serious discussion of an issue. No matter how fervently you believe in the truth of evolution and no matter how passionately you disagree with ID, that's no excuse for mocking people on the other side. Brad Pardee___ 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: Probation requirements
The application of the free exercise clause as you describe it would be no guarantee of free exercise at all. Holding an opinion or a belief is not an exercise of anything. The clause doesn't say the free belief in religion but the free exercise of religion, which is clearly descriptive of an action, not merely a mental process. This was why the compelling interest and least restrictive means requirement were necessary. Just as freedom of speech does not protect slander or the making of terrorist threats, free exercise of religion does not protect every religious activity (such as human sacrifice, to use an extreme example). As I understand it (admittedly from a layman's perspective), Employment Division v. Smith took this reasonable test and reduced it to an anti-discrimination clause, which is a VERY different animal from a guarantee of Free Exercise. There is a substantial difference between a license for anarchy and giving the state a blank check to require or prohibit anything it wants to as long as it places the same burden on every person. The free exercise of my faith that is only protected until the state decides otherwise is no free exercise at all. If the state is going to compel its citizens to choose between their God and their government, it SHOULD have to demonstrate a compelling interest beyond Well, we want to. It SHOULD be able to show that what they propose is the least restrictive means of defending that compelling interest. Otherwise, all our talk of free exercise and religious freedom is nothing more than Pollyannic wishful thinking. Brad Pardee Gene Garman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/2005 02:29 PM Please respond to Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To Samuel V [EMAIL PROTECTED], Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu cc Subject Re: Probation requirements The free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, but religion is not above the law, except in matters of opinion. The Free Exercise Clause does not say the exercise of religion cannot be abridged, which means reduced. The Free Exercise Clause plainly says the exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, which means totally. All actions are subject to the laws of the land which apply to all citizens equally, regardless of religion. In 1879 (Reynolds v. U.S.) wording of the Free Exercise Clause, as written, was unanimously understood by the Court : Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ... Can a man excuse his practices ... because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. ... It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only. The Free Exercise Clause, by its precise wording, is in complete harmony with Reynolds v. U.S. The Free Exercise Clause does not forbid all religion exercise, but it is not a license for anarchy; and, it makes no exception for anyone. All actions are subject to rules of conduct lawfully established, such as probation rules, regardless of religion opinion. You can also refer to the unanimous decision of Davis v. Beason in 1890. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Samuel V wrote: Can anyone point me to an article, preferably available online, discussing whether probation requirements violate free exercise? For example, is a free exercise problem created whensuch as when the effect of the restriction is to prohibit the probationer to attend the church of his choice (because he can't leave town, can't be near children, can't be near wine, etc.). If you'd like to respond offlist, please do so to [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. ___ 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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
That's true, there are those who do believe in God, and it's also true that this does not make intelligent design science. That's why I referred tosome realms of the scientific community. I'm just saying that, among those who ARE hostile to the idea of the supernatural, there is no explanation for intelligent design that will satisfy them, no matter how much solid science might be behind it. (And the same is true of the hostility of some Christians whose view of psychology is so jaundiced that no idea that comes forth from the study of the human mind will be accepted.) Brad Steve Jamar wrote: There are many scientists who also believe in god. That does not make intelligent design science. But there are also many scientists and others who dismiss the supernatural entirely. And a few who are, as you put it, hostile to it. But rejection of ID as valid science does not imply hostility to the supernatural. There is a range of belief about the supernatural or god among scientists as among those in any walk of life. Some are believers, some are agnostics, some are athiests, some are hostile.___ 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: John Lofton/Oaths
The primary difference between the two potentially motivating fears is that the legal system can be deceived as to whether or not one is telling the truth, so John Q. Witness might believe that he could perjure himself and get away with it. An omniscient supreme being, on the other hand, would both know if a witness told the truth and be able to hold the witness inescapably accountable. I suspect, though, that you're right about an empirical test being difficult to establish. Brad Pardee Professor Lipkin wrote: Alternatively, we might simply say to a witness, your testimony is subject to the laws of perjury, and you're legally required to tell the truth whether you swear an oath or not. There's probably not much divergence between those motivated to tell the truth by a fear of legal consequences as by a fear of religious consequences. I might be wrong about this last point, but I'm not sure there could be an empirical test establishing such a divergence.___ 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.
ACLU sues over court oaths
Interesting case. I haven't heard a complaint about this before. This is from Raleigh, North Carolina's News Observer. Brad - ACLU sues over court oaths Lawsuit asks state to rule that the term The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit asking the state to rule that the term Holy Scriptures refers not just to the Bible but to other sacred texts. For the complete story ... http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2630881p-9067516c.html___ 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: ACLU sues over court oaths
John Lofton wrote on 07/28/2005 11:06:41 AM: Exodus 20:1-3: And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me. --- John Lofton. But unless you are suggesting that the state take a position on a purely theological matter, which would display extraordinary disregard for the establishment clause (even as understood by those of us who are conservative Christians), what bearing does this have on the matter of court oaths? Brad Pardee___ 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 Faith Of John Roberts
Interesting article in the LA Times about how John Roberts would handle a situation where the law requires him to issue a judgment that violates the teachings of his faith. If their account of the conversation is true (and we all know the mainstream media ALWAYS gets its facts straight before talking about faithful Christians, right? *rolls eyes*), then their concern is a valid one. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-turley25jul25,1,3397898.story?ctrack=1cset=true Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: 9th Amendment : School Choice and State RFRAs
Ed Brayton wrote on 07/26/2005 10:33:00 AM: I would submit that the founders believed that all rights are recognized but not created. The founding premise of this nation is that we are all endowed with rights which pre-exist governments and that the purpose for which governments are formed is for the protection of those rights. All rights, therefore, are recognized by government, not created by government. The constitution is a charter of power granted by liberty, not a charter of liberty granted by power, as Madison said. The challenge with this argument would seem to be determining what is a right and what is not. Otherwise, we create a situation where anybody who wants to do anything can claim that they have a right to do so. Suppose, for the sake of example, a person was to say that they have the right to crank up their stereo at 2 am. We can have noise ordinances to prohibit that, but the person claiming that right would say, If it is my right, then you can't pass an ordinance to take that right away from me. It would then fall to the courts to say either Yes, there is a right to crank your stereo at 2 am or No, there is no such right. While the explicitly listed rights are clearly recognized, somebody somewhere is going to have to determine what are the unlisted rights that are also recognized. In my hypothetical, what is going to stop the stereo cranker from saying, This is a right that you must recognize? Brad Pardee___ 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: IRS clears Falwell
Douglas Laycock wrote: ... But when the pastor simply says something, about an issue or a candidate, there is no marginal cost in dollars and no possible way to run his speech through the political affiliate. The effect of an absolute ban on endorsements is simply to censor the speech of a class of citizens. The fact that American United For Separation Of Church And State brought such a complaint in the first place is what makes religious conservatives like myself a bit nervous and cynical. Are they working to separate the church from the state, or to separate religious citizens from the rights of citizenship? Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: John Lofton/Personal Views
John Lofton wrote on 07/25/2005 03:36:28 PM: One thing I'd like to hear you folks who know a lot more about everything than I do discuss is this dismissal by many of personal views as irrelevant. Does anybody think it would not matter, and be relevant, if Roberts, or any such nominee, in his private, personal time, was active in a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic organization --- even though none of these private views ever, ever appeared in his public life. Incidentally, and Biblically, integrity is defined as single-mindedness, single purpose --- not being, at different times, on opposite sides, of the same issues. Indeed, this kind of behavior is what Scripture calls double- mindedness and such a man as this is said to be unstable in ALL his ways. God bless you all. John Lofton. A difference between a judge's personal views and his rulings on the bench does not constitute double-mindedness as it appears you are suggesting it does. It is the job of a legislator to determine what the law ought to be, and the job of a judge to determine what the law is. If, for instance, a judge were to personally believe that abortion is always wrong but that the law protects the right to an abortion, then it is not doublemindedness for that judge to rule that abortion is legal. If the judge were to say one day that abortion is wrong and one day that it's not, that might be doublemindedness, but to say that abortion is wrong but the law protects it nonetheless is not doubleminded. Similarly, a lawyer might argue differing positions on different cases on the same issue because he is not making his own case or stating his own beliefs. He is, rather, stating the case of his clients, which may well vary from case to case. In terms of your hypothetical case, though, there are those who would (quite wrongly, I might add) say that the Catholic Church is a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic organization. Most people correctly understand that it is not. If we were discussing a genuinely hateful organization, such as the KKK, that would certainly be an issue because of the need to assess the character of someone who would join such an organization. But that's an issue of character, not an issue of private views. Brad Pardee___ 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.
