RE: Wow! It's still OK to pray in Jesus' name
Ok, as an atheist, I want my turn at the invocation then, Chaplain K. My copy of the US Constitution says...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless it involves Jesus and Christianity and a perfunctory prayer at government meetings by Jews, Mormons, and Muslims (and the occasional Atheist, just to show how tolerant the government is), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridge the freedom of speech... I do not understand why the Courts keep insisting on establishing RELIGION, any religion, in direct contradiction of the US Constitution. I'm with Mr. Franklin on this one; if god needs such help from the government, he/she can't be much of an omnipotent god...and further...his/her followers aren't much help either. Carol Moore, list reader. From: Gordon James Klingenschmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Enjoy (or forgive) my personal celebration for the 11th Circuit Court ruling in Pelphrey v. Cobb County, restoring sanity to the legislative prayer process. Can't we all just take turns? I Pray In Jesus Name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt ___ 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:Kid misrecites the Pledge of Allegiance - can he be graded down for that?
Perhaps it's just a penmanship exercise, with art thrown in for good measure. At best, the grade would be a STAR -- political or religious commentary might earn a FROWNY face. A truly conscientious parent would give the child a crayon, help with the formation of letters, suggest a crudely drawn flag and fireworks...then explain that the pledge is a loyalty oath that is never really required to be said or followed unless one is an adult and makes her/his own decision about it...with or without under god. Congress made it strictly ceremonial (and thereby meaningless for enforcement) when they codified it. Carol Moore List Reader ___ 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: Defamation of Religion
And if this discussion doesn't make one want to dig up James Madison and kiss his molding corpse for penning Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion... I don't know what would. With all due respect to those who profess belief, government and religion should have separate bedrooms, if not separate houses, with no conjugal visits. This trend puts Nixon's domino theory in a new light. Carol Moore Gentle Reader ___ 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: Suing God, et al
Don't overlook the subversive nature of religion, any religion, as it tries to wiggle its way into courts (so help me god, god save this honorable court), loyalty oaths (one nation, under god) classroom prayers (to some generic deity), laws (one man + one woman = marriage), and the drive through windows of fast food joints (have a blessed day). The very nature of religion is elitist, requiring adherents to think of themselves as chosen or anointed by a deity; in some cases this manifests itself as racism or overly nationalistic. Both cases are non-productive for humans, especially in this country where we spend an inordinate amount of time in court trying to appease both sides. Our Federal Constitution is godless (except for that one teeny little generic reference at the end, cancelled by antiquity), and ALL laws -- federal, state, local -- should take that into consideration when promulgated. This atmosphere of godlessness is not atheism; it's for our survival as a nation. This atmosphere should translate into law as the reasonable non-adherent's standard, thereby eliminating the need to filter everything case, every issue, and every nuance of every argument thru the prism of religion. Large rocks with religious laws would never occupy space in public buildings; religious jewelry and clothing wouldn't be an issue in the workplace or school; think of the possibilities for the precious use of time if we weren't all bothered with personal agendas and the resulting lawsuits. Religion is protected under the Establishment Clause...what more could anyone need (except, thankfully, the Supreme Court's wise inclusion of non-religion in the same protection)? Carol Moore List Reader ___ 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: Market-protecting chaplains and the First Amendment
As a resident of Alabama, I can assure you that if the inmates brought suit for any violation, the jury would reject the claim -- there wouldn't be a non-christian allowed in the jury pool. V. Carol Moore List Reader ___ 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: Request by William Janssen
Any book by Leonard W. Levy is good, but especially The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment. Very well researched footnoted. Makes for great group discussion. V. Carol Moore William Janssen wrote: Good afternoon. I am picking up a Religion the Law course for the coming semester, and would welcome any suggestions on casebooks. Any thoughts appreciated. Thank you. Bill Janssen **William M. Janssen | **Assistant Professor of Law /*/Charleston/*//*/ School of Law /*/| 81 Mary Street | Charleston, South Carolina 29403 843.329.1000 x2442 | //fax - 843-853-2519// [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.
