Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision

[Jean Dudley]

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:03 AM, Volokh, Eugene  wrote:
> 
> 2.  The “single grocer in town” hypothetical may be relevant to the 
> compelling government interest inquiry – maybe one could argue that the 
> government has a compelling interest in making sure that everyone has access 
> to food without having to drive to the next town, and therefore requiring the 
> grocer to sell to the KKK sympathizers, or for that matter to sell food that 
> he knows will be used at the KKK picnic.  But in the much more typical town 
> in which there are many grocers, most of which are quite happy to sell to 
> anyone who has the money, denying the exemption isn’t necessary to serve the 
> government interest.

Is there legal precedence establishing this hypothetical into law?  It seems to 
me that it may apply to the county clerk who is refusing to issue any marriage 
licenses or allow any assistant to issue them and instead send couples to the 
next county. 

 

___
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: Colorado Cakeshop decision

[Jean Dudley]

There are moral/ethical dilemmas, and then there are legal ones;  In the case 
of the KKK and selling sheets, it could be argued that a shop owner could 
refuse to sell sheets and pillow cases because a legal argument could be made 
that the act would be complicit (not sure of the terminology here) in illegal 
activity, namely domestic terrorism.  (Yeah, yeah, peaceful protest, heritage 
not hate, blah, blah, blah.  I call BS.  The mere sight of a hooded and robed 
KKK member is terrifying to a significant section of American citizens. It’s 
domestic terrorism, whether it is prosecuted or not. If it makes you feel 
better, how about calling it “disturbing the peace”?) 

In the case of pharmaceutical companies refusing to sell drugs for execution, 
it could be argued that they would be abetting in an act that is illegal where 
the drugs are made;  if those drugs are being shipped across state lines for 
use in an execution of a prisoner that would not be facing the death penalty in 
the drug manufacturers’ home state, isn’t that illegal, too?  This one I’ll 
admit is a bit blurry.  

Then there’s the restaurant that refused to provide a public service to a 
clinic that provides safe, legal abortions.  This one is pretty clear cut to 
me; if they can’t provide that service to all, they shouldn’t be in that 
business.  

As a photographer, I’ve watched stock photographs being used for all sorts of 
things that I find morally repugnant, but alas, are legal;  one case in 
particular sticks in my mind.  A mother brought her daughter in for “modeling” 
photographs, signed a release.  To her horror, her daughter’s image was used by 
a “pro-life” group on a poster that read “The most dangerous place for African 
American women is in the womb”.  Mother sued and lost.  She’d signed the 
release. The photographer had sold the image to a stock photography business, 
who in turn told it to the “Pro-life” group.  

I’ve seen images of Yosemite in pseudo-scientific text books on “intelligent 
design”.  Again, bought and paid for through stock agencies.  That is why I 
donate my Yosemite images to public school teachers who promise not to use them 
to teach creationism or “intelligent design”. 

These are indeed legal uses of images.  That is why I am not a stock 
photographer. 


> On Aug 13, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Levinson, Sanford V  
> wrote:
> 
> This is an interesting example. (And I thank Eugene for his typically 
> thoughtful answer.)  Can one distinguish between the illegitimate direct use 
> of the product (to kill human beings) and the mere fact that the cupcake will 
> be eaten at a wedding (or trust)?  Would we be comfortable if the single 
> grocer in town refused to sell food to someone known to sympathize with the 
> KKK?  I assume, though, that the civil rights laws was prohibits 
> discriminating on grounds of race etc., and this should hold for sexual 
> orientation as well. 
> 
> Sandy
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 13, 2015, at 7:25 PM, K Chen  > wrote:
> 
>> The various pharmaceutical companies refusing to sell certain drugs to death 
>> penalty states come to mind.
>> 
>> -Kevin Chen
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Volokh, Eugene > > wrote:
>>Sure, why not?  Say a grape grower refuses to sell to 
>> winemakers, or a pacifist widget maker refuses to sell to military 
>> contractors, or a restaurant refuses to deliver to abortion clinics?  See 
>> Rasmussen v. Glass (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), 
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=648897692635049631 
>> , which 
>> holds that, even if a city ordinance banning discrimination based on “creed” 
>> required restaurants to deliver to abortion clinics, there had to be a 
>> religious exemption from such an ordinance.  “Under the provisions of the 
>> Minneapolis ordinance, relator Glass [owner of the Beach Club Deli] has two 
>> choices. He can either associate with an entity that engages in conduct 
>> which he finds to be morally offensive [delivering to abortion clinics], 
>> thus compromising his conscience, or he can refuse and be found guilty of 
>> discrimination and fined.”
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>Now these have to do with objections to sales to businesses, 
>> not sales to individuals – but I can’t see why they would be different for 
>> RFRA / state Free Exercise Clause purposes.  As to how the information would 
>> be obtained, I take it that many a business wouldn’t work very hard to 
>> investigate the matter, but when it learned that its products were used by a 
>> customer in ways it disapproved of, might stop selling them to that customer.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>Isn’t that how many of us would act if we were 
>> businesspeople, and we learned that some of our customers were using our 
>> products in ways we strongly disapproved of?  Want to buy our pillowcases?  
>> Go right ahead.

Re: The Remarkable Disappearance of State Justifications in Obergefell

[Jean Dudley]

It seems to me that natural law establishes a certain percent of any mammalian 
species be non-reproductive—in some cases through homosexual pair bonding.  
It’s up to us as human beings, and legislative creatures, to decide if same-sex 
pair bondings between consenting adult human beings be granted the same right 
to state-sanctioned marriage as both reproductive and non-reproductive opposite 
sex pair-bondings.   Which we have done.  


> On Jul 3, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Levinson, Sanford V  
> wrote:
> 
> Actually, what we label "natural law" is a figment in the West of Greek 
> imagination, since the arguments can be found in Plato and Aristotle, even if 
> they were most fully developed by Thomas Aquinas. And, alas, Jewish and, I 
> presume Islamic, law is thoroughly homophobic. None of this affects my 
> support for Obergefell, but we should recognize this as a truly important 
> moment in works culture, signaled far more significantly by the Irish 
> referendum than by the vote of five American justices. 
> 
> Sandy
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Malla Pollack  > wrote:
> 
>> Natural law is a figment of Christian imagination.  Do you really think that 
>> Muslims think western "natural law" is "natural"?
>> 
>> Malla 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard Dougherty > > wrote:
>> Largely agree with this point, except for one major caveat -- natural law 
>> arguments are not religious arguments.  That's what is natural about them.  
>> The collapse of the distinction between natural and religious is precisely 
>> what allows for the dismissal of natural law arguments as not applicable to 
>> the public realm of a secular society (whatever that phrase may mean or 
>> entail, a great source of contestation).
>> 
>> Richard Dougherty
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Marc R Poirier > > wrote:
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Judy and all:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> You write: “Sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only 
>> between a man and a woman...uh, this pertains to same-sex couples how?”
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I suspect the writer meant to write: “Sexual relations, which can lead to 
>> procreation, should occur only between a man and a woman.”  That would make 
>> it a natural law argument, one that does not refer to God.  It’s part of a 
>> millennia-long (probably inevitably recurring) notion that sex is basically 
>> polluting and is redeemed by various kinds of restrictions.  One functional 
>> and redemptive justification for sexual activity is potential procreation.  
>> Not pleasure, not fostering a bond of companionship, not the release of 
>> important desires.  As you well know, in the Judea-Christian tradition, 
>> non-procreative sex is problematic, and in one version of Christianity 
>> pleasure in sex is itself sinful.  (Not so in traditional Judaism!)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> But of course to say all this openly brings religion and perhaps God back 
>> into the state’s justification.  What happens instead is to make certain 
>> kinds of conclusions about sex statements of obvious fact and then claim 
>> rational basis.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Warmly,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Marc R. Poirier
>> 
>> Professor of Law and Martha Traylor Research Scholar
>> 
>> Seton Hall University School of Law
>> 
>> One Newark Center
>> 
>> Newark, NJ 07102-5210
>> 
>> 973-642-8478  (work)
>> 
>> 973-642-8546  (fax)
>> 
>> 201-259-0896  (mobile)
>> 
>> Selected articles and drafts available at http://ssrn.com/author=1268697 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Somebody has to plant the seed so that sanity can happen on this earth. -- 
>> Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu 
>> 
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Richard J. Dougherty, Ph.D.
>> Chairman, Politics Department
>> University of Dallas
>> 1845 E. Northgate Drive
>> Irving, TX 75062
>> 972-721-5043 
>> ___
>> To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu 
>> 
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>> private.  Anyone can subsc

Re: Baker in Oregon told not to advocate against public accommodation law

[Jean Dudley]

> On Jul 3, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Michael Worley  wrote:
> To those who believe in the wisdom of public accommodation laws and the fine 
> imposed: How can we accommodate political speech here? the ALJ's logic seems 
> sensible if he fines them that much for emotional damages.
> 
It seems to me that culturally, politics doesn’t belong in the workplace;  When 
you’re at work, you’re supposed to keep politics at home.  I’ve worked from 
Hawaii to Rhode Island, and in just about every workplace discussing politics 
with either co-workers or customers is considered unprofessional behavior.  
Socially, work is work, and politics has no place in it.  

I suppose that goes for business owners, too;  It’s a cultural norm. 

On the other hand, public accommodation laws are in place to ensure equal 
treatment for all citizens;  You’re using a host of things put in place by the 
government, whether it’s the benefit of public-school education for your 
employees, or the county-maintained roads that lead to your door, or the 
subsidized utilities that run your cash register, you are beholden to the 
populate at large for the infrastructure that supports your business.  It is 
incumbent upon you to provided services to all—not just your friends and family 
and the other members of your church.  

I remember my grandmother pointing to a sign on a restaurant wall;  “We reserve 
the right to refuse service to anyone”.  She said “That means they don’t want 
to serve colored people”.  We never went back to that restaurant.  I’ve seen 
signs like that as lately as last year in Missouri. 

What it boils down to is this:  If you run a business in the public sphere, you 
have to serve everybody.  You’re welcome to put up any sign you want on your 
own private property;  But you’re not allowed to discriminate, or discourage 
business from a segment of the population. 

Once again, I am not a lawyer;  I’m a photographer, and I choose not to 
photograph weddings commercially because I personally think that heterosexual 
weddings are perpetrating a system of oppressing women.  I could be making 
$3000-$5000 per wedding.  But I choose not to because it goes against my 
ethics. 

Jean Dudley


___
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: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 2, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Tessa Dysart  wrote:

> But IUDs do change the uterine lining, 
> http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control,
>  raising the question for some people as to whether they can act to prevent 
> implantation, assuming fertilization occurs. 
>  
> As for Plan B & Ella, the websites for both products contain documents that 
> do say that they may work to prevent implantation--Ella (see p. 12: 
> https://pharma.afaxys.com/afaxys/assets/pdf/ella_FPI.pdf); Plan B (click on 
> “How Plan B Works” http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx).

One of the URLs that Dawn Johnson provided calls into question the information 
on those very sites;  
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=0

As of 2012, what exactly Ella does is up for question.  Plan B, well, it delays 
ovulation, and (Ick trigger warning!) causes cervical mucus to thicken, 
impeding sperm from reaching the ovum. But of course now the Green family has a 
supreme court pass to ignore this fact, and still make contributions to 
companies that make morning after pills and IUDs, and possibly get monetary 
dividends from said contributions.  

Jean
“Liar!  LIAR! I’m NOT a witch, I’m your WIFE!”
—Valerie, wife of Miracle Max, Princess Bride. ___
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: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 2, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Tessa Dysart  wrote:

> But aren’t the forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby objects to 
> specifically marketed as contraception that can prevent implantation? I know 
> that Plan B is—whether IUDs prevent implantation is  perhaps a little more 
> controversial.   

Marketing isn’t always based on scientific fact—especially when scientific 
facts are lacking. I suspect that they are maximizing on one aspect of how Plan 
B works.  Just ignore that man behind the curtain…

> For people who believe that life begins at fertilization, a form of 
> contraception that prevents implantation is a problem.

In the immortal words of The Bard, “Ah, therein lies the rub…” Yes, it is a 
problem—as is the belief that receiving a lifesaving blood transfusion is the 
same as “eating blood”—and yet Jehovah’s Witness employers must still provide 
insurance that covers said “evil”.  Why did Alito give a pass to one, but not 
the other?  I’m jaded enough on matters of female equality to believe that 
someday Alito or someone he loves will need a blood transfusion.  He, of 
course, will never have to deal with a life-threatening pregnancy in his own 
person.  

Jean. 
“You say feminazi like it’s a bad thing!” 
> 
> Tessa
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:43 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?
>  
>  
> On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody  wrote:
> 
> 
> (and indeed there's no
> scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion)
>  
> Problem with this sentence on two levels:  First, contraception is a pretty 
> broad term, and includes things like abstinence, barriers, hormone therapy.  
> Literally defined, contraception prevents or impedes conception.  Abortion, 
> on the other hand is medically defined as the premature exit of the product/s 
> of conception.  Abortion can be induced or spontaneous.  BTW, about 1/2 of 
> all conceptions are aborted spontaneously, and if one believes it was God’s 
> will, then that makes one’s God the busiest abortion provider in the 
> universe.  
>  
> As for the claim that there’s no scientific consensus as to whether “the 
> contraception” (Plan B? The Pill? IUD? Condoms? Pulling out? ) causes 
> abortion, that’s because it’s damn hard to conduct ethical, empirical tests 
> whether or not a zygote was prevented from implanting in the uterine wall 
> tissue, or if it was ejected during induced menses. Remember, there can be no 
> consensus unless there are multiple, peer reviewed experiments under rigorous 
> scientific processes.  Not many women are willing to have their menstrual 
> effluvia collected for scientific examination.  Not many scientists think it 
> important enough to find out, either. Not many sources of funding for any 
> kind of scientific research of any kind, much less something so 
> female-centric. 
>  
> Carry on.  I’m just providing some uterine perspective here. 
> Jean. 
> TMI? Yeah.  Deal with it. 
>  
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/7691 - Release Date: 06/17/14
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> ___
> 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: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Jean Dudley]

We’re dealing with some pretty icky stuff, here;  zygotes, embryos, fetuses, 
menstruation, uterine tissues…but if decisions that affect those icky things 
are made, we really should be willing to speak about them. 

Now what gets me is there’s an exemption for blood transfusions and 
vaccines—equally valid religious exemptions exist for those in that same 
statement if I recall.  It seems to me that Justice Alito gets to pick and 
choose which scientific facts are ignored based on his own beliefs.  

Jean
“Now I’m not stupid but I can’t understand/ Why she walks like a woman but 
talks like a man…” 
(From “Lola”, by The Kinks)


On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Michael Peabody  wrote:

> Thanks Jean - I was trying to avoid getting into a discussion as to
> the particulars of the contraception (which is the vehicle for this
> particular case) by relying on Justice Alito's statement on page 9,
> footnote 7, which dismissed the dispute over what the drugs actually
> do (distinguishing between how the company and regulators viewed the
> drugs).  In other words, if the company owners believe it causes
> abortion, or the company owners believe that wearing blue hats on a
> Monday attracts evil spirits, the Court would apply the same analysis.
> ___
> 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: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody  wrote:

> (and indeed there's no
> scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion)

Problem with this sentence on two levels:  First, contraception is a pretty 
broad term, and includes things like abstinence, barriers, hormone therapy.  
Literally defined, contraception prevents or impedes conception.  Abortion, on 
the other hand is medically defined as the premature exit of the product/s of 
conception.  Abortion can be induced or spontaneous.  BTW, about 1/2 of all 
conceptions are aborted spontaneously, and if one believes it was God’s will, 
then that makes one’s God the busiest abortion provider in the universe.  

As for the claim that there’s no scientific consensus as to whether “the 
contraception” (Plan B? The Pill? IUD? Condoms? Pulling out? ) causes abortion, 
that’s because it’s damn hard to conduct ethical, empirical tests whether or 
not a zygote was prevented from implanting in the uterine wall tissue, or if it 
was ejected during induced menses. Remember, there can be no consensus unless 
there are multiple, peer reviewed experiments under rigorous scientific 
processes.  Not many women are willing to have their menstrual effluvia 
collected for scientific examination.  Not many scientists think it important 
enough to find out, either. Not many sources of funding for any kind of 
scientific research of any kind, much less something so female-centric. 

Carry on.  I’m just providing some uterine perspective here. 
Jean. 
TMI? Yeah.  Deal with it. 

___
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.

Degrees of complicity

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Steven Jamar  wrote:

> How about owning stock in companies that make and sell contraceptives?  They 
> had to sign a contract to do that.  

Good question, Steve:  Let’s narrow this down a bit—remember, HL only objects 
to “morning-after” contraception and IUDs. And yes, HL made investments in 
those companies that made, among other things, both “morning after” pills and 
IUDs.  Whether or not they received any dividends really isn’t germane, I 
think—the fact that they gave money makes them complicit and nullifies a claim 
of religious sincerity to my mind.  But if they do accept dividends wouldn’t it 
compound complicity? 

Further, they pay money for goods made in China, a country that still routinely 
forces women to abort in a state backed population control effort, even though 
China says they don’t do that.  How many steps removed does it have to be to 
not count as complicity? 

Can HL have its exemption revoked and fines imposed because their “sincerely 
held religious belief” is a moral sham?  If the SCOTUS doesn’t scrutinize how 
“sincere” a religious belief is, but accepts on prima facia that the belief is 
sincere, don’t they have an obligation to vacate the exemption once similar 
complicity in said “evil” is proven? 

This decision was a huge game changer;  previously other folks with sincerely 
held religious beliefs had to content themselves with not doing “evil” 
themselves, but not denying said “evil” to others under their employment.  Now 
a group of people can withhold medically necessary and legally mandated 
treatment options.  If you’re against blood transfusions, don’t have one, but 
don’t block others from having them.  But they can now opt out of providing 
Plan B or IUDS to women who need them medically even though those women don’t 
agree that they are abortive.  The fact that medical science doesn’t think 
they’re abortive doesn’t matter.  Religious belief once again trumps science 
and law.  How sad. 

Once again, I am not a lawyer.  I just happen to have a (non-functioning) 
uterus. 
Jean


___
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.

Whitewood v. Wolf

[Jean Dudley]

http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf

Of particular note is the use of traditional marriage vow clauses as headings:  
For Better and Worse, Richer and Poorer, In Sickness and in Health.  
Interesting to see that the plaintiffs met each clause, but were denied the 
right to have their marriage recognized until now by the state of Pennsylvania. 
 

I’m glad I’ve lived to see these days.  

Jean Dudley. 
___
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: Definition of discrimination.

[Jean Dudley]

Tznkai  said: "If we're going to avoid conscripting artists into doing art they 
don't want to do, the artists themselves need to stop holding themselves out to 
the public as a business serving the general public."

I can offer another perspective from beyond the ivory walls of academia. I am 
an artist, and photography is my medium.  I've only photographed one wedding, 
as a favor to the married couple who are friends of mine. 

I've made portraits of people, captured iconic landscapes, and documented 
geological wonders. But I will not submit my work to agencies because I cannot 
control how my images will be used once they are licensed, and I object to them 
being used either for religious or certain political agendas.  

Oddly, that didn't stop Tyndale house publisher from stealing one of my images 
from my website and using it on the cover of a Christian novel without so much 
as a by-your-leave or thank you, much less an offer of payment. 

In the end they paid for a new camera once I confronted them. 

To be fair, I offer at cost prints or free license to public school teacher who 
want to use them to teach science.  I also have donated images to the national 
park service for use in ranger talks and publications. 

I'm assuming that since I haven't made a business from my art, what 
discrimination I practice is legal. 

I think my ethics are as valid as any religious objection to complicity with 
sinful behavior. And so I have withdrawn my art from the sphere of public 
commerce. Surely Christian artists can do the same. 

> On Mar 1, 2014, at 11:48 AM, tznkai  wrote:
> 
> If we're going to avoid conscripting artists into doing art they don't want 
> to do, the artists themselves need to stop holding themselves out to the 
> public as a business serving the general public.
___
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: Definition of discrimination.

[Jean Dudley]

I think the larger sadness of my account is that it and much worse are so very 
common. 

I still think that discrimination has to be described in terms of a denial of 
my rights, and that the vulgarity shouted at me in fact didn't deny me anything 
tangible. I suppose an argument could be made that I was denied being able to 
feel safe on a public road at night, but to be fair I'd say that just about 
every woman in America would be fearful for her safety in the jewelry district 
of Providence at night. Do I really have a right to expect safety?  I don't 
think I do. 

I think Mr. Finkleman rebutted your hypothetical wronged evangelists much 
better than I could, Mr. Sisk.  From my position here listening at the 
windowsill of the Ivory Tower Of Law, it seems to me there is a distinct 
difference between closing the doors of business in order to fulfill sincerely 
held religious beliefs and telling a potential customer "begone, foul faggot, 
and darken my door no more!" While other customers more to the keeper's liking 
enjoy the wares proffered within. 

On a final note, in my youth I was an evangelist. Perhaps it was because I went 
door to door in the bucolic and somnolent town of Salinas, Ca, that I never 
once faced the sort of disparagement those hypothetical missionaries did. Even 
the worst sinners would simply say they were busy, or that they had no desire 
to hear the gospel. Maybe if I'd tried my luck in the infamously callous 
streets of New York I would have had to endure worse insults.  But then it 
would have only triggered my sense of martyrdom, I supposed, and I would have 
rejoiced that I was such a good Christian in spite of men's mocking of my 
efforts. I have since repented of my youthful folly and count myself among the 
godless atheists now. 

> On Mar 1, 2014, at 9:09 AM, "Sisk, Gregory C."  wrote:
> 
> A sad and disturbing story.  I'd say that, yes, it was "discrimination" from 
> the outset and virulently so.  "Verbal antagonism" is a form of 
> discrimination, when it is based on a person's identity, as it obviously was 
> here (and in my hypothetical as well).  Whether what Jean experienced was or 
> should be actionable as a matter of law, and at what point the discriminatory 
> conduct changed from offensive speech to illegal threat (when the 
> introduction of legal constraint is most justified), does not change the 
> overall nature of the conduct as discrimination.
> 
> As despicable as may be expression, we appreciate that the law is not the 
> right response to every such situation and that empowering the government to 
> police emotional harms -- without in any way depreciating the reality and 
> impact of emotional harms -- may be intrusive into expression and may invite 
> overreaching of governmental coercion that endangers freedom for all.  
> Denying public goods and services based on identity is discrimination to be 
> sure, but so is what my hypothetical Christian evangelists suffered.  In the 
> end, whether the law should prohibit any particular form of discrimination 
> should turn on whether a concrete economic harm or danger to safety is 
> established, not simply on characterization of behavior as discriminatory.  
> Expectations of decency and civility call for all of us as neighbors, 
> friends, members of a community to speak out and reject hateful words and 
> intolerant behavior (while protecting always genuine differences of opinion). 
>  We cannot shirk this moral duty by delegating it to government, and given 
> the dangers of government power, we should not.
> 
> Greg Sisk
> 
> 
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
> on behalf of Jean Dudley [jean.dud...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 7:05 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Definition of discrimination.
> 
> 
> On Feb 28, 2014, at Fri, Feb 28,  7:11 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. 
> mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote:
> 
> Now what these two evangelical Christians experienced was plainly 
> “discrimination.”
> 
> I’m not sure it was.  While I’m not an attorney of any stripe or ilk, I’d say 
> that what those evangelists experienced was (verbal) antagonism.  And while 
> it was indeed vile and despicable, it is protected under free speech, if I’m 
> not mistaken, provided no one actively threatened them with bodily harm.
> 
> Discrimination would have occurred if the Jewish shop owner had indeed 
> refused to serve them because they were evangelists, or at least 
> discrimination in the legal sense, if I understand it.  If someone had begun 
> beating them while yelling anti-evangelist epithets, that would have been a 
> hate crime or possibly rel

Definition of discrimination.

[Jean Dudley]

On Feb 28, 2014, at Fri, Feb 28,  7:11 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. 
 wrote:

> Now what these two evangelical Christians experienced was plainly 
> “discrimination.”

I’m not sure it was.  While I’m not an attorney of any stripe or ilk, I’d say 
that what those evangelists experienced was (verbal) antagonism.  And while it 
was indeed vile and despicable, it is protected under free speech, if I’m not 
mistaken, provided no one actively threatened them with bodily harm. 

Discrimination would have occurred if the Jewish shop owner had indeed refused 
to serve them because they were evangelists, or at least discrimination in the 
legal sense, if I understand it.  If someone had begun beating them while 
yelling anti-evangelist epithets, that would have been a hate crime or possibly 
religiously motivated assault, certainly?  

Discrimination is difficult to pin down; but certainly denying publicly offered 
goods and services for reasons other than an inability to pay is 
discrimination, isn’t it?  

Once, while leaving the local lesbian watering hole in Providence, RI, a car 
full of (I suspect rather drunk) young men yelled “Fucking dyke!” at me.  My 
immediate response was “I’m a walking dyke. I do my fucking at home!” 

At that point one of them threw a glass bottle which smashed many yards away 
from me.  

Discrimination?  They didn’t deny me from using public roads, but assault?  
Maybe.  That bottle was more threat than assault, I think.  

Was I scared, in fear of my life?  You better believe it, in spite of my rare 
quick response to their taunt.  Luckily they sped off, and I was able to get to 
my car and go home without any physical damage. But common self preservation 
told me that drunk young men are dangerous; that is a lesson I learned from 
Matthew Sheppard.  My prescience was justified by the badly-aimed glass bottle. 
 

So tell me, list members, was I “discriminated” against?  Was I assaulted?  At 
what point did their behavior cross from protected speech to criminal activity? 
 Did it? 

I never did tell my story to the police.  I’d already been told that the 
Providence police turned a blind eye on such things, and even worse things 
routinely.  How could I get justice when I didn’t even have a license plate 
number or descriptions of the men? 

All the best,
Jean. 


___
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: Oxford Journal of Law and Religion

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 27, 2013, at Tue, Aug 27,  7:02 AM, "GARDINER, Sara" 
 wrote:

> This message is confidential. You should not copy it or disclose its contents 
> to anyone. 

Wow.  Not sure what I find more disturbing; actual spam on this mailing list, 
or the above section of the warning at the bottom.  I mean, it's a joke, right? 
 Right?  



___
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.

Info on wedding photography.

[Jean Dudley]

Once again, I'm not a wedding photographer, nor an attorney of any stripe or 
ilk.  Regarding who retains copyright on images created of weddings:  Old 
school is that the photog retained the rights.  This way they could use prints 
to advertise their work.  With the advent of affordable digital images, though, 
many photographers are changing their business model, and often do send out CDs 
of image files.  The client can print at home on their own printers, or take 
them to various automated photo print places.  

Interesting note:  Often those automated print machines you see in drug stores 
will refuse to print if there is a copyright in the EXIF data:  Even if you're 
the one who took the photo and therefore owns the copyright!  
___
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 Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who Discriminated Against Gays

[Jean Dudley]

Wait a second:  For whatever reason the NYT exists, whether an altruistic free 
expression of news, or as a greed capitalist oppressive tool of The Man, it's 
still illegal to refuse to sell papers to someone because they are 
gay/straight/black/white/Catholic/Jewish/Iranian(whoa, are there any embargoes 
of newspapers to Iran?).  If you're going to sell a newspaper, you gotta sell 
it to anyone with the money to buy. 

On Aug 23, 2013, at Fri, Aug 23,  1:07 AM, "Scarberry, Mark" 
 wrote:

> The NY Times, for example, still sells a few papers, and they charge for 
> on-line access, too, as my monthly credit card statement attests.

___
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 Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who Discriminated Against Gays

[Jean Dudley]

Of all the wedding photogs I know, Mark, not one of them thinks that taking 
pictures of weddings is their art.  Every one of them says that it's how they 
pay the bills and get enough money to buy the next big NikoCanon 5DMk800D.  But 
then, I don't know every wedding photographer.  As for free expression, one 
name comes to mind:  Robert Mapplethorpe.  What happened to his free expression 
when his work was defunded by the NEA for "obscenity"? 

I mostly keep quiet about legal stuff here;  Ya'll can quote specific case law 
till the cows come home.  But it seems to me in my naiveté that the right to 
free speech and freedom of the press are two separate things for a reason.  
Besides, aren't there limitations on what a newspaper can print?  I'm pretty 
sure that if the NYT were to start advocating violence against a person or 
segment of the population, wouldn't that bring down the 
F.B.I/C.I.A./N.S.A./M.I.C.K.E.Y.M.O.U.S.E? 

In the case of newspapers, you can't advocate or incite violence.  In the case 
of businesses, you can't discriminate based on your religion.  

 
On Aug 23, 2013, at Fri, Aug 23,  1:07 AM, "Scarberry, Mark" 
 wrote:

> Of course it's also very clear that getting paid for your expressive efforts 
> doesn't reduce the level of 1st Am protection you are entitled to. The NY 
> Times, for example, still sells a few papers, and they charge for on-line 
> access, too, as my monthly credit card statement attests. 
> 
> Mark Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
> 
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
> 
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Brad Pardee  
> Date: 08/23/2013 12:44 AM (GMT-08:00) 
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'  
> Subject: RE: New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who 
> Discriminated Against Gays 
> 
> 
> We may have to agree to disagree on the role of the wedding photographer.  My 
> wife and I both considered the wedding photographs to be part and parcel of 
> the event and the photographer to be a member of the wedding party who was 
> most assuredly there to celebrate with us.  We would not have chosen a 
> photographer who would not see their role that way.  The same would be true 
> of the wedding planner, who is also providing a service for a fee.
>  
> I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about with regards to the 
> nature landscape or wildlife photographers or how that ties in to the subject 
> at hand.
>  
> Brad
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:28 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who 
> Discriminated Against Gays
>  
>  
> On Aug 22, 2013, at Thu, Aug 22,  9:06 PM, "Brad Pardee" 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> This is not correct.  The issue is neither the customers' identity or the 
> free market.  It is about the merchant being required to participate in 
> events that they cannot participate in by virtue of the tenets of thier faith 
> in order to engage in commerce. 
>  
> Speaking as a photographer (although not a wedding photographer) you are not 
> "participating" in the wedding.  You are providing a service for a fee.  A 
> participant is a member of the wedding party.  You are not there to 
> celebrate, you are there to do a job.  A photographer isn't standing there 
> with a drink in one hand, and a piece of cake in the other.  A photographer 
> has a light meter in one hand, and a cable release in the other.  Eventually, 
> the photographer has their hand out for the check.  
>  
> Wedding photography is a business.  If you are constrained by your religion 
> to refuse to do business based on sexual orientation, that is discrimination. 
>  That's against the law.  
>  
> BTW, I know of no nature/landscape/wildlife photogs who refuse to do their 
> job because trees have orgies in the spring, mountains refuse to "multiply 
> and be fruitful", or swans are known to engage in lifelong same sex pairings. 
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> 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 Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who Discriminated Against Gays

[Jean Dudley]

Not all couples are fortunate enough to have that sort of leeway, Brad.  I've 
heard of couples who take a very long time deciding between two photographers, 
and usually settle on the one that's cheaper.  In fact, the big thing these 
days is "Hey, let's get Uncle Bob to bring his new Nikocanon 5D800 2000 
megapixel camera, and he can send us a CD of the images, and we can take them 
to Walmart to have them printed out!".  I once heard of a wedding where the 
couple gave out disposable cameras to all the attendees, then collected them 
afterwards.  They don't want to spend the money on "Professional" 
photographers.  And with the advent of high quality digital cameras, wedding 
photographers are finding it harder and harder to make a living.  In fact, 
Smugmug (photographer's website) offered "How to shoot gay weddings" seminars 
on the day the SCOTUS overturned Prop 8 and DOMA.  That could make the 
difference for a lot of photogs out there trying to pay the rent/mortgage.  

A professional photographer is providing a service, Brad.  A good professional 
photographer who enjoys their work can certainly be pleasant at your 
wedding--and remember, if your photographer is grumpy, your portraits are going 
to reflect that.  It's professional to be upbeat, even when you discover that 
one of the kids poured punch in the Pelican case you left open, and ruined a 
$5000 camera body.  

I have no clue who your photographer was, nor if you knew them personally 
before hand:  It's obvious you had a good one.  I hope you paid them well, 
because obviously they made an impression on you.  But no matter what you 
require of your photographer, in the end they are doing business.  And if your 
photographer was gay, and surly because you got to marry the consenting adult 
of your choice, and he couldn't, then he should not be in the wedding 
photography business.  Because if he'd said no because he doesn't do straight 
weddings, you know that he'd be brought up on discrimination faster than hell, 
and rightly so. 

As for the comments about various other types of photographers, it was meant to 
be humor.  Wildlife/nature/landscape photographers get out there and get the 
images without regard for the fact that if religious standards were applied to 
nature, they'd have to stay inside.  I suppose it is a bit convoluted, and 
rather inelegant. BTW, "tree orgies" is when the pines and cedars put out huge 
pollen clouds.  It's reproductive, but at a distance. 


On Aug 23, 2013, at Fri, Aug 23,  12:42 AM, "Brad Pardee" 
 wrote:

> We may have to agree to disagree on the role of the wedding photographer.  My 
> wife and I both considered the wedding photographs to be part and parcel of 
> the event and the photographer to be a member of the wedding party who was 
> most assuredly there to celebrate with us.  We would not have chosen a 
> photographer who would not see their role that way.  The same would be true 
> of the wedding planner, who is also providing a service for a fee.
>  
> I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about with regards to the 
> nature landscape or wildlife photographers or how that ties in to the subject 
> at hand.
>  
> Brad
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:28 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who 
> Discriminated Against Gays
>  
>  
> On Aug 22, 2013, at Thu, Aug 22,  9:06 PM, "Brad Pardee" 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> This is not correct.  The issue is neither the customers' identity or the 
> free market.  It is about the merchant being required to participate in 
> events that they cannot participate in by virtue of the tenets of thier faith 
> in order to engage in commerce. 
>  
> Speaking as a photographer (although not a wedding photographer) you are not 
> "participating" in the wedding.  You are providing a service for a fee.  A 
> participant is a member of the wedding party.  You are not there to 
> celebrate, you are there to do a job.  A photographer isn't standing there 
> with a drink in one hand, and a piece of cake in the other.  A photographer 
> has a light meter in one hand, and a cable release in the other.  Eventually, 
> the photographer has their hand out for the check.  
>  
> Wedding photography is a business.  If you are constrained by your religion 
> to refuse to do business based on sexual orientation, that is discrimination. 
>  That's against the law.  
>  
> BTW, I know of no nature/landscape/wildlife photogs who refuse to do their 
> job because trees have orgies in the s

Re: New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who Discriminated Against Gays

[Jean Dudley]

Again, as a photographer, once you put your unique artistic style on the 
market, it is a business.  If you can't provide your unique artistic style to 
everyone, and insist on withholding it based on religious belief, then you need 
to offer your unique artistic style free to friends and family;  Then it 
becomes expression.  Once you take money for it, it's a business.  That's what 
being a professional photographer means.  You run a business.  

BTW, I don't offer my images to stock photo companies because once you do so, 
you no longer control who uses it, or for what purpose.  I have a moral 
objection to my images being used to teach "intelligent design".  So I don't 
submit them to stock agencies.  It's the moral thing to do.  

How do I make a living?  I'm a retail cashier.  I make art on my own time.  I 
have no sympathy for the "professional" photographer who wants to pick and 
choose her clientele based on her religious beliefs.  

And why am I not a wedding photographer?  Because there is still marriage 
inequality in the USA.  I won't photograph heterosexual marriages because 
same-sex marriage is not legal in all 50 states.  

On Aug 22, 2013, at Thu, Aug 22,  11:47 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" 
 wrote:

> To follow up on Will's point, would the photographers violate the law, or the 
> contract the law requires them to make, if they did not attempt to portray 
> the wedding as a joyous celebration? I presume they would at least violate 
> the implied terms of the contract that is forced upon them. If so, then the 
> law is not just requiring artists (and wedding photographers are artists) to 
> create art with a particular content, but also requiring them to express a 
> viewpoint that is not theirs.
> 
> It is puzzling to me, and disheartening, that list members do not seem to 
> think that this is coerced speech. Of course the auto mechanic's work is not 
> generally expressive -- almost never even rising to the level of symbolic 
> speech. A photographer creates art; the photographer's work is inherently, 
> traditionally, and (in the case of a wedding photographer) inescapably 
> expression, fully protected, except, it seems, in New Mexico, by the First 
> Amendment.
> 
> Mark Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
> ___
> 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: New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who Discriminated Against Gays

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 22, 2013, at Thu, Aug 22,  9:06 PM, "Brad Pardee" 
 wrote:

> This is not correct.  The issue is neither the customers' identity or the 
> free market.  It is about the merchant being required to participate in 
> events that they cannot participate in by virtue of the tenets of thier faith 
> in order to engage in commerce. 

Speaking as a photographer (although not a wedding photographer) you are not 
"participating" in the wedding.  You are providing a service for a fee.  A 
participant is a member of the wedding party.  You are not there to celebrate, 
you are there to do a job.  A photographer isn't standing there with a drink in 
one hand, and a piece of cake in the other.  A photographer has a light meter 
in one hand, and a cable release in the other.  Eventually, the photographer 
has their hand out for the check.  

Wedding photography is a business.  If you are constrained by your religion to 
refuse to do business based on sexual orientation, that is discrimination.  
That's against the law.  

BTW, I know of no nature/landscape/wildlife photogs who refuse to do their job 
because trees have orgies in the spring, mountains refuse to "multiply and be 
fruitful", or swans are known to engage in lifelong same sex pairings.  


___
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 Suit Argues Prop 8 Is Still Enforceable

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 15, 2013, at Mon, Jul 15,  5:39 PM, Steven Jamar  
wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Jean Dudley  wrote:
> 
>> In other news, how 'bout Indiana?  They just reduced the penalty for 
>> same-sex couples applying for a marriage license from 3 years to 18 months.  
>> The $10,000 fine stands.  Any clergy who solemnizes a same-sex marriage gets 
>> a penalty of up to 180 days in jail, and $1000 fine.  Interesting that 
>> Christian clergy aren't screaming "PERSECUTION!" at the top of their 
>> lungs over that, wouldn't you say? 
> 
> Umm. No. 
> http://www.jconline.com/article/20130713/COLUMNISTS30/307130030/Bangert-A-cautionary-tale-on-Indiana-law-same-sex-marriage-and-quick-draw-pundits

Um, yes. From the above linked article: "What the legislature changed was how a 
host of Indiana crimes are classified, starting on July 1, 2014. The marriage 
laws were in that bushel. And in their case, the penalty actually drops from a 
Class D felony’s maximum three years in jail and $10,000 fine to what will be 
called a Level 6’s maximum of 18 months in jail and $10,000 fine."

Which is basically what I said in the quoted bit above.  No mention is made of 
any change to the Class B felony (clergy who solemnize a same-sex marriage) 
penalty of 180 days in jail and fine of $1000.  My question is this:  Why 
aren't there more progressive clergy stepping forward and saying that they are 
being persecuted for following their conscience?  And why make an application 
for marriage license a felony for same-sex couples at all?  This seems like 
purely spiteful legislation to me.  

  
> 
> ___
> 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: New Suit Argues Prop 8 Is Still Enforceable

[Jean Dudley]

If I'm reading the arguments correctly, what they boil down to is "Perry et al 
got what *they* (and they alone) wanted, so every other same-sex couple has to 
appeal to the circuit court and SCOTUS to be able to marry in the state of 
California".  I'm not a lawyer, so I could be WAY wrong here.  IMO, they don't 
have a snowflake's chance in Death Valley (today, at least). 

My emotional response is: Geez, why don't they take the money they're paying to 
attorneys and give it to a home for indignant cats, and spend their time more 
constructively on their collective knees in imprecatory prayer? 

 I'll admit to a tiny but intense sense of admiration for their sheer tenacity. 
 

In other news, how 'bout Indiana?  They just reduced the penalty for same-sex 
couples applying for a marriage license from 3 years to 18 months.  The $10,000 
fine stands.  Any clergy who solemnizes a same-sex marriage gets a penalty of 
up to 180 days in jail, and $1000 fine.  Interesting that Christian clergy 
aren't screaming "PERSECUTION!" at the top of their lungs over that, 
wouldn't you say? 


On Jul 15, 2013, at Mon, Jul 15,  7:48 AM, "Friedman, Howard M." 
 wrote:

> A petition for a writ of mandate was filed Friday with the California Supreme 
> Court arguing that because of the narrowness of the injunction that was 
> reinstated by the US Supreme Court, California county clerks must still 
> enforce Prop. 8 that bans same-sex marriage.  More details on Religion 
> Clause-- 
> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-petition-to-california-supreme.html
> 
> Any reactions on the merits of the arguments put forward by the petitiion?
> 
> Howard Friedman
> ___
> 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: Nonreligious rational bases for opposite-sex-only marriage rules

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  9:21 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"  
wrote:

> One such rational justification is that one ought not modify 
> – or modify further – rules for an institution that is very old and 
> foundational in society, as well as important to our legal system, until one 
> sees more than a few years’ experience with such an institution.  Again, one 
> might disagree with this justification (I do, on balance), but I find it hard 
> to see how it’s irrational.

Here's how it's irrational: How can one gather experience with such an 
institution if it doesn't exist because it's not codified?  If gay marriage 
doesn't exist, how can you gain experience to make a modification based on 
experience of it? 
>  
> Another justification is the view that opposite-sex relationships are better 
> for society (for instance, because they produce more children,
More children in a country already suffering from disparate resource 
distribution, wage inequality, wars, famine, disease, pollution?  How is that 
"better"? 
> or because they provide children with both male and female parents)
Please demonstrate how having both a male and a female parent is "better".  A 
recent Australian study suggests that children of same-sex marriages are 
healthier than opposite-sex marriages.  


> than same-sex relationships, and that the fact that many 
> non-entirely-heterosexual people are bisexual rather than purely homosexual– 
> especially among women – suggests that there are at least some people who 
> could be influenced to choose heterosexual relationships over homosexual 
> relationships.  (See Laumann et al. (1994), reported in relevant part at 
> http://www.volokh.com/posts/1184344872.shtml, for data on the relative number 
> of bisexuals vs. pure homosexuals.) 

One can be born a Jew, or one can "convert".  It's still irrational to 
discriminate against them.  Why is this important to the debate about same-sex 
marriage? 

> One might disagree that we want more children,

With good reason!  See my list of horrors above
> or that in the long term opposite-sex relationships will produce more 
> children (given reproductive technology)
--what are your reason for wanting more children?  Especially since given 
reproductive technology now allows same-sex couples have children, and that 
we're seeing more and more children of such unions? 
> , or that having a male and female parent is indeed markedly beneficial for 
> children,

Which has been shown no better than same-sex families, and there's a list of 
such studies over at wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting 
> or that any significant number of bisexuals will indeed be swayed towards 
> heterosexuality by the marriage rules;
And just *how* is that a good thing?  Considering the high rate of heterosexual 
divorce (which, IMO, isn't such a bad thing, considering it's cruel to force a 
person to stay in a marriage with someone they don't love), wouldn't offering 
them the chance to "pursue happiness" where they can find it be much more 
magnanimous? 
> or one may conclude (again, as do I) that the benefits of same-sex marriage 
> (e.g., reduction in sexually transmitted diseases, more stability for the 
> many children who will in any event be raised by same-sex couples, etc.) 
> outweigh the possible costs.  But again I don’t see how the justification I 
> outline above is irrational, as opposed to not sufficient to carry the day.

They are irrational because they are not based in fact, Mr. Volokh.  But 
considering we are an irrational species, it's not such a bad thing.  We're 
dealing with nebulous concepts that have never been fully defined:  "good", 
"bad", "moral", "obligation".  These are things that shift and slip, and are 
pretty hard to pin down.  
>  
> Finally, one can of course conclude that as a matter of moral obligation, 
> same-sex relationships should be treated equally with opposite-sex 
> relationships even if there are social costs to this – or that there should 
> be a presumption of equal treatment that can only be rebutted if we are 
> really quite confident that the equal treatment would generate social costs.  
> But that’s not an argument about scientific fact or rationality.

Scientific fact give us a basis, Mr. Volokh; If someone tries to say that 
children do poorly in a same-sex family, science steps in and says to take that 
argument off the table.  It's not true. It's irrational to continue to say so 
if you have no proof to the contrary.  Rationality comes in and asks 
questions--"what, exactly, is "good" and "moral" in denying/allowing marriage 
equality?"  Irrationality is refusing to ev

Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Jean Dudley]

Lifestyle?  What lifestyle?  
On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  9:58 PM, "Brad Pardee"  
wrote:

> I wasn't discussing lifestyle.  There are hedonists among the gay and 
> straight communities alike, just as there are faithful and monogamous 
> relationships within the gay and straight communities alike.
>  
> However, you actually confirm the point I was making.  What people believe is 
> right and what people believe is wrong in moral questions is rarely, if ever, 
> the result of statistical analysis or scientific study.  That does not make 
> them, by definition, irrational.

You're right: Just because it hasn't been confirmed by statistical analysis 
doesn't necessarily make it irrational; but once it has been proven one way or 
another it's irrational to continue to state the opposite, something I've seen 
numerous times in the Same-Sex Marriage debate.  
>  
> Brad Parde
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:45 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
>  
> Mr. Pardee, I have just posted some statistics on divorce and out-of-wedlock 
> births that might pass as "facts."  They suggest that states that allow same 
> sex marriages have lower divorce rates and lower out of wedlock birth rates 
> than state that oppose same sex marriage.  Might we consider this the 
> "hetero-sexual lifestyle"?
>  
>  
>  
> *
> Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, NY 12208
>  
> 518-445-3386 (p)
> 518-445-3363 (f)
>  
> paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu
> www.paulfinkelman.com
> *
> 
> 
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
> on behalf of Brad Pardee [bp51...@windstream.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:27 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
> 
> How many moral questions are based on scientific fact?  Whether an argument 
> is in support of same sex marriage/relationships or in opposition to them, it 
> ultimately boils down to a question about what you believe is right and and 
> what you believe is wrong, and those questions, no matter which side of the 
> question you find yourself supporting, are rarely, if ever, supported by 
> scientific fact.  If they were, then nature's display of the law of survival 
> of the fittest, a scientifically verified phenomena to be certain , would 
> seem to suggest that objection to killing is irrational.
>  
> Brad Pardee
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:00 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
>  
> Would you kindly provide one argument that isn't irrational?  Understand that 
> it will indeed be scrutinized for basis in scientific fact, and that it if 
> fails, it will have to be deemed irrational.  
> On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  6:35 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" 
>  wrote:
>  
> 
>  My intended point is that the notion that opposition to same sex marriage - 
> even if based on traditional arguments about the morality of homosexual 
> relationships - cannot be dismissed as irrational or hateful. 
>  
> ___
> 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: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Jean Dudley]

When folks tell me they're insulted by being reminded that their terminology is 
bigoted, I am often tempted to respond with my best Betty Davis impression:  
"Butcha AH, Blanche, ya AH in that chair!".  But that, of course, would be 
counter-productive to the discussion at hand.  Usually I just walk away at that 
point, because why beat a dead horse.  Mr. New will either take my advice, or 
he won't.  Whether he's insulted or not really is no longer of concern to me.  

Keep in mind that Paula Deen *still* is tearfully denying being a racist after 
multiple and continued use of the N word toward her workers.  All I can say is, 
'if the shoe fits, wear it, no matter how uncomfortable it is'. 
On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  9:46 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"  
wrote:

> Well, many people find others expressly suggesting that they 
> change their political terminology to be demeaning and dismissive.  Indeed, 
> publicly asking people to change how they speak – and calling people bigots – 
> is often felt to be insulting.  One might well suggest that people remove 
> such requests from their terminology.
>  
> Naturally, of course, Ms. Dudley might respond that she is 
> right in suggesting that Mr. New is a bigot, and that her comment should fit 
> within an exception to the principle I mentioned above.  And Mr. New might 
> respond that he was right in calling homosexuality a lifestyle, and that it 
> is her comment that is insulting.  (Or maybe these two people wouldn’t – I 
> can’t read their minds – but others on their side well might.)  But that just 
> highlights, I think, how unproductive these sorts of demands are in public 
> debate, and how unlikely they are to actually persuade people.
>  
> Eugene
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:32 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
>  
> Add my intellectual curiousity to Dr. Finkelman's. Homosexuality isn't a 
> lifestyle, any more than heterosexuality is.  Considering homosexuals vary 
> wildly in ethnicities, economic status, religions, moralities, the only thing 
> they have in common is their sexuality.  Kinda like heterosexuals, it seems 
> to me.  
>  
> We in the homosexual sector consider the term "lifestyle" to be demeaning or 
> dismissive.  It is considered insulting and since it is often used by bigots, 
> a bigoted term.  May I suggest you remove it from your terminology, Mr. New? 
>  
>  
> On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  8:00 PM, "Finkelman, Paul" 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Mr. New
>  
> I would love to know that the "homosexual lifestyle" is. 
>  
>  One of my former students is a law graduate and a sitting judge; her 
> partner/wife has and MBA; they have twin daughters (through a sperm bank); 
> are members of the local Temple, one is on the board of the Temple. They live 
> in a very nice house in the suburbs; They vote, pay taxes; send their kids to 
> school. They have been together since the mid-1990s.
>  
> Another one of my very close friends is an associate dean at a law school; 
> his partner/husband is a physician. They life in really nice apartment in NY 
> City.  My law professor friend writes great scholarship and does a ton of pro 
> bono work.  They have been together for about 14 years.
>  
> Both of these marriages (which lacked legal sanction until just a few years 
> ago) have lasted longer than many of the hetero-marriages I have seen and I 
> suspect have lasted longer than the average hetero marriage does in many 
> places.
>  
> Is there something wrong with these lifestyles?  
>  
> You talk in your post of the "homosexual lifestyle."  I have no idea what you 
> are talking about.
> Care to share this with the list?  My gay friends have lifestyles very much 
> like my straight friends except their marriages seem to be longer lasting.
>  
> Maybe you are opposed to longer lasting marriages?
>  
>  
> *
> Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, NY 12208
>  
> 518-445-3386 (p)
> 518-445-3363 (f)
>  
> paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu
> www.paulfinkelman.com
> *
> 
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
> on behalf of David W. New [david_...@msn.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:16 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Acad

Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Jean Dudley]

Dunno about moral questions, but it seems to me that there's lots of arguments 
made on claims that haven't been proven;  Take, for example, the claim that 
children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents.  Exactly *how* they 
are harmed is never really quantified;  However, there are studies that show 
that children of same-sex parenting are as  well adjusted as their opposite-sex 
parented peers.  In fact, a very recent Australian study says they are 
*healthier* than their peers. 

In short, Mr. Pardee, if an argument is made, for or against, it has to be 
*factual*.  How are facts verified?  Science.  And yes, that acknowledges 
errors of bias.  But science, sir, is what gives us *facts*.  

As for survival of the fittest, even that hypothesis is in dispute: Nature 
displays a vast supply of examples of cooperation; herd beasts often protect 
the young, the vulnerable, from attack. 

So again, I ask for *one* argument against homosexuality that is not religious 
in nature.  Anybody? 
On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  9:27 PM, "Brad Pardee"  
wrote:

> How many moral questions are based on scientific fact?  Whether an argument 
> is in support of same sex marriage/relationships or in opposition to them, it 
> ultimately boils down to a question about what you believe is right and and 
> what you believe is wrong, and those questions, no matter which side of the 
> question you find yourself supporting, are rarely, if ever, supported by 
> scientific fact.  If they were, then nature's display of the law of survival 
> of the fittest, a scientifically verified phenomena to be certain , would 
> seem to suggest that objection to killing is irrational.
>  
> Brad Pardee
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:00 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
>  
> Would you kindly provide one argument that isn't irrational?  Understand that 
> it will indeed be scrutinized for basis in scientific fact, and that it if 
> fails, it will have to be deemed irrational.  
> On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  6:35 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>  My intended point is that the notion that opposition to same sex marriage - 
> even if based on traditional arguments about the morality of homosexual 
> relationships - cannot be dismissed as irrational or hateful. 
>  
> ___
> 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: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Jean Dudley]

Add my intellectual curiousity to Dr. Finkelman's. Homosexuality isn't a 
lifestyle, any more than heterosexuality is.  Considering homosexuals vary 
wildly in ethnicities, economic status, religions, moralities, the only thing 
they have in common is their sexuality.  Kinda like heterosexuals, it seems to 
me.  

We in the homosexual sector consider the term "lifestyle" to be demeaning or 
dismissive.  It is considered insulting and since it is often used by bigots, a 
bigoted term.  May I suggest you remove it from your terminology, Mr. New? 


On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  8:00 PM, "Finkelman, Paul" 
 wrote:

> Dear Mr. New
> 
> I would love to know that the "homosexual lifestyle" is. 
> 
>  One of my former students is a law graduate and a sitting judge; her 
> partner/wife has and MBA; they have twin daughters (through a sperm bank); 
> are members of the local Temple, one is on the board of the Temple. They live 
> in a very nice house in the suburbs; They vote, pay taxes; send their kids to 
> school. They have been together since the mid-1990s.
> 
> Another one of my very close friends is an associate dean at a law school; 
> his partner/husband is a physician. They life in really nice apartment in NY 
> City.  My law professor friend writes great scholarship and does a ton of pro 
> bono work.  They have been together for about 14 years.
> 
> Both of these marriages (which lacked legal sanction until just a few years 
> ago) have lasted longer than many of the hetero-marriages I have seen and I 
> suspect have lasted longer than the average hetero marriage does in many 
> places.
> 
> Is there something wrong with these lifestyles?  
> 
> You talk in your post of the "homosexual lifestyle."  I have no idea what you 
> are talking about.
> Care to share this with the list?  My gay friends have lifestyles very much 
> like my straight friends except their marriages seem to be longer lasting.
> 
> Maybe you are opposed to longer lasting marriages?
>  
>  
> *
> Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, NY 12208
>  
> 518-445-3386 (p)
> 518-445-3363 (f)
>  
> paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu
> www.paulfinkelman.com
> *
> 
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
> on behalf of David W. New [david_...@msn.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:16 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
> 
> Respectfully, I disagree with you. I just finished writing a 3,400 word 
> article making the case against homosexuality without using religion in any 
> way. I think a very strong case can be made against homosexual lifestyle 
> without any reference to God, the Bible, etc. As you can imagine, I am busy 
> trying to find a publisher because of its length and in some cases, its 
> content. If I ever get it published, the title of my article is:
> 
> "Listen To Your Body, 7 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Bad for America." I hope 
> that Americans will continue to be extended the courtesy to think for 
> themselves--even if its not popular. It seems that defenders of the gay 
> lifestyle who want us to be tolerant of homosexuality become very intolerant 
> if you dare to disagree with them. We are living in a Joseph McCarthy era in 
> reverse. Now it’s the left who is intolerant. Sincerely, David W. New, Esq. 
> Member Maryland and DC Bars.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Jean Dudley
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
> 
> I'm with Eduardo; I can't believe this.  Mr. Esenberg, it's not simply a 
> matter of disagreement, it's a matter of said arguments simply do not hold 
> water without a religious premise.  Put another way, yes, I disagree with the 
> arguments, but that's because they're fallacious to the point of 
> autoeroticism. There are no valid non-religious arguments against 
> homosexuality. 
> On Jun 30, 2013, at Sun, Jun 30,  6:38 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" 
>  wrote:
> 
>> You can certainly disagree with these arguments but they do not proceed from 
>> theological premises.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Jean Dudley]

Would you kindly provide one argument that isn't irrational?  Understand that 
it will indeed be scrutinized for basis in scientific fact, and that it if 
fails, it will have to be deemed irrational.  
On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  6:35 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" 
 wrote:

>  My intended point is that the notion that opposition to same sex marriage - 
> even if based on traditional arguments about the morality of homosexual 
> relationships - cannot be dismissed as irrational or hateful. 

___
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: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Jean Dudley]

I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.  Would you be interested in 
my rebuttal?  If so, kindly send me a copy off-list.  


On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1,  5:16 PM, "David W. New"  
wrote:

> Respectfully, I disagree with you. I just finished writing a 3,400 word 
> article making the case against homosexuality without using religion in any 
> way. I think a very strong case can be made against homosexual lifestyle 
> without any reference to God, the Bible, etc. As you can imagine, I am busy 
> trying to find a publisher because of its length and in some cases, its 
> content. If I ever get it published, the title of my article is:
> 
> "Listen To Your Body, 7 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Bad for America." I hope 
> that Americans will continue to be extended the courtesy to think for 
> themselves--even if its not popular. It seems that defenders of the gay 
> lifestyle who want us to be tolerant of homosexuality become very intolerant 
> if you dare to disagree with them. We are living in a Joseph McCarthy era in 
> reverse. Now it’s the left who is intolerant. Sincerely, David W. New, Esq. 
> Member Maryland and DC Bars.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Jean Dudley
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
> 
> I'm with Eduardo; I can't believe this.  Mr. Esenberg, it's not simply a 
> matter of disagreement, it's a matter of said arguments simply do not hold 
> water without a religious premise.  Put another way, yes, I disagree with the 
> arguments, but that's because they're fallacious to the point of 
> autoeroticism. There are no valid non-religious arguments against 
> homosexuality. 
> On Jun 30, 2013, at Sun, Jun 30,  6:38 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" 
>  wrote:
> 
>> You can certainly disagree with these arguments but they do not proceed from 
>> theological premises.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 
> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) 
> forward the messages to others.
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 
> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) 
> forward the messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Jean Dudley]

I'm with Eduardo; I can't believe this.  Mr. Esenberg, it's not simply a matter 
of disagreement, it's a matter of said arguments simply do not hold water 
without a religious premise.  Put another way, yes, I disagree with the 
arguments, but that's because they're fallacious to the point of autoeroticism. 
There are no valid non-religious arguments against homosexuality. 
On Jun 30, 2013, at Sun, Jun 30,  6:38 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" 
 wrote:

> You can certainly disagree with these arguments but they do not proceed from 
> theological premises.

___
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: Basketball tournaments on the Sabbath

[Jean Dudley]

Seventh day Adventists keep Saturday sabbath like Jews do, sundown to sundown. 
Or did when I counted myself among their numbers 35 years ago. 

On Mar 4, 2012, at 4:55 AM, "Saperstein, David"  wrote:

> H…… Take off for the Jewish Sabbath and see what you miss – even on the 
> religion law listserve.  Must be a good lawsuit in this somewhere, but I 
> leave it to Stern to figure out J
>  
> Just an historical footnote Alan: The Puritans observed the Sabbath from 
> sundown  Saturday until sundown Sunday.  Don’t know if any sabbaterian sects 
> still do that.  May be some small ones.
> The case Marc Stern alludes to is:  Playcrafters Student Members v Teaneck 
> TP. Bd of Ed, 88 NJ 74 (1981) 438 a.2d 543.
> 
> Knowing how many rabid sports fans dominate this list:
>  
> FORT WORTH, Texas -- An inspired comeback in the fourth quarter fell short 
> Saturday night and a state title eluded the Orthodox Jewish high school 
> basketball team from Houston.
> 
> Robert M. Beren Academy closed a 12-point deficit to two in the final minute, 
> but could get no closer in a 46-42 loss to Abilene Christian in the Texas 
> Association of Private and Parochial Schools' Class 2A championship game at 
> Nolan Catholic High School.
> 
>  
> David
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Armstrong
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 4:51 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Basketball tournaments on the Sabbath
>  
> I think that is not relevant.
>  
> I thought the Saturday afternoon/evening mass was for those who could not 
> make it to church Sunday morning.
>  
> An Orange County Register columnist, Frank Mickadeit, called it the "slakers' 
> mass."
>  
> Alan
>  
> Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
> Office 18652 Florida St., Suite 225
> Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
> Mail 16835 Algonquin St., Suite 454
> Huntington Beach CA 92649-3810
> 714 375 1147 fax 714 782 6007
> a...@alanarmstrong.com
> Serving the family and small business since 1984
> NOTICE: 
>  Any tax advice in this e-mail, including attachments, can not be used to
> avoid penalties or for the promotion of a tax related matter.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> On Mar 3, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
> 
> 
> Lots of Catholics go to Saturday evening mass.   Relevant?
> 
> On Mar 3, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Alan Armstrong  
> wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that Jewish and 7th day adventists consider sabbath as 
> going from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. I do not know of any 
> christian denominations that use sundown Saturday to sundown on Sunday as the 
> Lord's day.Therefore a Saturday night game should be acceptable to all.
>  
> A little thought and common sense and we would need fewer lawyers.
>  
> Alan
>  
> Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
> Office 18652 Florida St., Suite 225
> Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
> Mail 16835 Algonquin St., Suite 454
> Huntington Beach CA 92649-3810
> 714 375 1147 fax 714 782 6007
> a...@alanarmstrong.com
> Serving the family and small business since 1984
> NOTICE: 
>  Any tax advice in this e-mail, including attachments, can not be used to
> avoid penalties or for the promotion of a tax related matter.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
> 
> 
> Some of you may have seen the story in the Times the other day about the 
> Beren Hebrew Academy in Houston, whose basketball team has reached the state 
> semi-finals of the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools 
> tournament. The semifinal game was scheduled for tonight; the Academy is 
> Orthodox and observant, and could not play.  The other school was willing to 
> reschedule, but the TAPPS Board voted 8-0 not to allow that. Most TAPPS 
> members are church affiliated, and as a matter of policy, it never schedules 
> games on Sunday.
>  
> Beren parents and students filed a lawsuit this morning in the Northern 
> District of Texas, alleging unconstitutional religious discrimination, Texas 
> RFRA, and breach of contract (based on a provision in the TAPPS bylaws). The 
> complaint’s state action theory was that the game was scheduled to be played 
> in a public school gym, which is surely not enough. The contract claim looked 
> stronger, judging only by the complaint.
>  
> Richard Friedman at Michigan tells me that TAPPS caved as soon as the 
> complaint was filed, and that the game will begin imminently and will be 
> completed before sunset.  If your position is utterly untenable as a matter 
> of public relations, it may not matter that the other side’s state action 
> theory is very weak. But they had to file the lawsuit before common sense 
> could prevail.
>  
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Virginia Law School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA  22903
>  434-243-8546
>  
> ___
> To post, se

Re: Back of the bus?

[Jean Dudley]

I'm showing my west-coast ignorance of NYC geography again, Paul.  Thanks for 
the correction.  And you're right, extremism transcends religious groups.  

Say, what ever happened to the discrimination suit against B&H photo and video 
store in NYC a few years back--they refused to hire or promote women for the 
sales floor or management.  Suit was filed in 2009.  

Jean
On Oct 20, 2011, at Thu, Oct 20,  11:38 AM, Finkelman, Paul 
 wrote:

> It is not the "town" that is involved.  It is the City of New York.  Last 
> time I looked Williamsburg was still part of Brooklyn.  This seems so 
> outrageous it is hard to comprehend from a legal perspective.  It does 
> reflect the desire of many (certainly not all) in the ultra-Orthodox and 
> Hassidic communities to separate themselves from the US.  Many in these 
> groups would rather live in pre-WW I Prague where they could have their own 
> community, their own rules, and their own legal system.  They do not believe 
> in pluralism or really in religious freedom.  But, that makes them in many 
> ways like many in the Christian fundamentalist world. After all, there is not 
> much difference between them and Chief Justice Roy Moore, who wanted to 
> impose his narrow and sectarian religious views on the entire state of 
> Alabama; or the public schools that encourage "prayer the flagpole" and allow 
> teachers to give extra credit for the student who go to the prayer, as 
> happened in Oklahoma when I l!
 iv!
> ed there.  
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law 
> Albany Law School 
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, NY 12208
> 
> 518-445-3386 (p)
> 518-445-3363 (f)
> 
> paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu
> www.paulfinkelman.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:26 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Back of the bus? 
> 
> It seems that a private bus company with a public transit contract in 
> Williamsburg wants women to sit at the back of the bus.  Why?  Because of a 
> high concentration of Hasidic Jews in the area.  The bus company is in 
> violation of its contract with the town which explicitly states that they 
> will not discriminate. 
> 
> Same town that residents put up signs on the street telling "Precious Jewish 
> Daughters" to step aside when a man approaches them on the sidewalk. 
> 
> Sorry for the implied vulgarity, but... WTF, Williamsburg? 
> 
> Here's the article: 
> http://gothamist.com/2011/10/19/women_riding_the_b110_bus_in_brookl.php
> 
> Jean Dudley
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 
> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) 
> forward the messages to others.
> 
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 
> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) 
> forward the messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Back of the bus?

[Jean Dudley]

It seems that a private bus company with a public transit contract in 
Williamsburg wants women to sit at the back of the bus.  Why?  Because of a 
high concentration of Hasidic Jews in the area.  The bus company is in 
violation of its contract with the town which explicitly states that they will 
not discriminate. 

Same town that residents put up signs on the street telling "Precious Jewish 
Daughters" to step aside when a man approaches them on the sidewalk. 

Sorry for the implied vulgarity, but... WTF, Williamsburg? 

Here's the article: 
http://gothamist.com/2011/10/19/women_riding_the_b110_bus_in_brookl.php

Jean Dudley
___
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: Teacher suspended for anti-same-sex-marraige Facebook post

[Jean Dudley]

OK:  The definition of "phobia" (to my understanding) includes "irrational 
fear".  Wanting to throw up (which I take to mean vomit) meets my definition of 
"unreasonable fear".  To be blunt, even if it means being off-topic, wanting to 
vomit at the thought of same sex marriage disqualifies him from being worth 
listening to when it comes to rational discussion of the issue at hand.  I 
don't give a damn about his awards as Super-Human-Teacher-Of-The Century.  

Just sayin'. 

We're here, we're queer, get the hell over it. 

On Aug 18, 2011, at Thu, Aug 18,  9:51 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

> I should note that the page now says he was “reassigned” 
> while the school investigates the matter, though other press accounts report 
> is as “suspended” (and my recollection is that the CNN page also said that 
> when I posted about it, though I might be mistaken on that).
>  
> Eugene
>  
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:56 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Teacher suspended for anti-same-sex-marraige Facebook post
>  
> Any thoughts on this?
>  
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/18/florida.teacher.facebook/
>  
> Lake County Schools Communications Officer Chris Patton said school officials 
> received a complaint Tuesday about the content on Mount Dora High School 
> teacher Jerry Buell's personal Facebook page  CNN affiliate Central 
> Florida News 13 reported that a status post on it said, "I'm watching the 
> news, eating dinner, when the story about the New York okaying same sex 
> unions came on and I almost threw up."
>  
> Patton would not confirm the content of the post, but he said Lake County 
> officials are taking the matter very seriously.
> "We began to review the code of ethics violations immediately and yesterday 
> afternoon temporarily reassigned the teacher pending the outcome of the 
> investigation," Patton told CNN Thursday
>  
> The newspaper said that in the same July 25 post, Buell said same-sex 
> marriages were part of a "cesspool" and were a "sin." ...
>  
> Buell, a teacher for more than 26 years [and a former “teacher of the year”], 
> served as the Social Studies Department chair at Mount Dora and taught 
> American history and government, according to the high school's website
> ___
> 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: Pro-lifer "guilty" in free speech, free press case

[Jean Dudley]

I disagree with your definition of stalking.  A mountain lion "stalks"  
its prey, with the full intent of not meeting it until it pounces.   
Stalkers of the human variety often act in the same manner, gleaning  
information about routes, and habits in order to accost their victims  
undetected by others.


And yes, actually others *have* killed after seeing a wanted poster.   
It happened in 93's, a reproductive health doctor was killed after a  
"wanted" poster was circulated:  Dr. David LaMond Gunn.  Likewise Dr.  
Tiller had been shot after posters were circulated with his image on  
them, and was later killed by a man he'd never met who stalked him.


You're correct in that no text on the poster actually used language  
advocating violence directly.  However, given the popular notion in  
our collective memory of wanted posters of the past (who doesn't think  
"DEAD OR ALIVE" when thinking of one), and the fact that there is a  
more recent history of killings and injury linked with anti-choice  
wanted posters, and the fact that the doctors' addresses and pictures  
were included on the posters, it is a fair assumption that  Mr. Benham  
was indeed inciting to violence, and it was his full intent to do so.   
The only outrageous thing about the settlement of this case is the man  
only got 2 years of probation, and not several years in prison.


In science and facts,
Jean Dudley.


On Nov 8, 2010, at Mon, Nov 8,  11:43 PM, Gordon James Klingenschmitt  
wrote:


Curious what our expert legal list members might say.this case  
is the first attempt at enforcing a new "residential peace" law that  
prohibits raising your voice on a public sidewalk outside the home  
of an abortion doctorthe doctor had never met the protester  
until today in court, so the "stalking" definition is dubiousbut  
the "wanted" posters should be protected as freedom of the press.   
Or are they?  The actual text on the posters said "Wanted by Jesus  
to stop killing babies."  No threats of physical violence were ever  
reported.  In Jesus, Chaplain Klingenschmitt

---

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/25678662/detail.html

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A local pastor was found guilty Monday of  
stalking a doctor who performs abortions.

He was sentenced to 24 months probation and plans to appeal.
Reverend "Flip" Benham posted wild west-style "Wanted" posters which  
gave the doctor's name and home address.
Benham said this was a free speech issue, that he has a  
constitutional right to speak his mind.

He said, "[The doctor] kills babies. He does it for a living.
He has no respect for life of children in the safety and  
neighborhoods of their mothers' wombs."
But others saw the posters as threats to women's rights and the  
doctor himself.
Cindy Thompson, with the Charlotte chapter of the National  
Organization for Women said,
"It's none of his business. He needs to leave women alone and let us  
make up our minds."
Some worried anti-abortion activists might kill the doctor,  
something that has happened elsewhere

and was mentioned multiple times in court Monday.
Prosecutors said it was like putting a target on the doctor's back.
The doctor said he felt the poster was a "call for my murder."
He said he was always looking over his shoulder, that he'd get down  
on his hands and knees
to make sure there were no bombs under his car, that he was worried  
someone would be
on the roof waiting to shoot him, and that he even watched TV in  
rooms with fewer windows.
Benham replied, "Nobody has gone and killed because [he or she] saw  
a poster.

That is most absurd and logical fallacy that there possibly could be."


___
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: Gay rights and religious freedom in the news

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 10, 2009, at Fri, Apr 10,  6:35 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:


From the washington post (quoting prominent list participants)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/ 
AR2009040904063.html


And did everyone see Doug Laycock on the Daily Show?  Sorry Doug.

Steve


No, but I did see his name being ridiculed on The Daily Show.

Sorry Doug, indeed. 
 ___
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: Atheists want God out of security - Security- msnbc.com

[Jean Dudley]

One small clarification;  the good professor mentions Roger Williams'  
followers, whipped and jailed in Virginia.  It's ironic to remember  
that Roger Williams himself defended a woman against her husband for  
"soul freedom", founded the first Baptist Church in America in  
Providence, RI--and later left it because they had become too  
dogmatic.  He'd be spinning in his grave if he hadn't been consumed  
by the apple tree root, now on display in the basement of the John  
Brown house in Providence.

The good professor brings up some very good points.  One I'd like to  
add is a reminder of the infamous words of Jerry Falwell on Sept 13,  
2001:

"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the  
feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to  
make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American  
Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in  
their face and say you helped this happen."

As a self-identified Pagan, lesbian, feminist, who supports the ACLU  
and is pro-choice, I take umbrage at his words.

Finally, one question:  Just *which* 'almighty God' do they depend on  
to keep them safe?  Me, I'd nominate Celtic war and death goddess The  
Morrigan.  The war-dead are her offerings, and her worship is war.   
We've got a head start with her, at least.

Just say'in.
Jean Dudley.


On Dec 3, 2008, at Wed, Dec 3,  5:43 AM, Paul Finkelman wrote:

> The really interesting aspect of this is the way in undermines  
> religion for those who take it seriously.  Does this mean that IF  
> there is a terrorist attack in KY that God no longer cares about  
> Kentucky?  GW Bush was arguably the most religious president to  
> ever sit in the office; lof of good it did us on Sept. 11.
>
> This reminds me of when I first moved to Oklahoma, in the summer of  
> 1999; there was a serious drought in the state. The Governor did  
> not ask the people to conserve water or stop washing their cars or  
> watering their lawns every day. Instead, he asked everyone to  
> reserve the following Sunday to "pray for rain" at their church.  I  
> suppose that exempted Jews, Seventh Adventists, Moslems, and some  
> others from worrying about the problem
>
> Alas, it also gave of fabulous proof of the efficacy of prayer.   
> They all prayed on Sunday and guess what --
> It did not rain for weeks or maybe even months.
>
> So much for the power of prayer when the government tried to  
> commandeer religion for its own political ends.  The Baptists -- of  
> all faiths -- those who started with Roger WIlliams and were  
> whipped and jailed in post-Revolutionary Virginia -- should have  
> the good sense NOT to corrupt their faith by allowing politicians  
> to score points.
>
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, NY 12208
>
> 518-445-3386 (p)
> 518-445-3363 (f)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> www.paulfinkelman.com
>
> --- On Wed, 12/3/08, Joel Sogol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Joel Sogol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Atheists want God out of security - Security- msnbc.com
> To: "Religionlaw" 
> Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 7:01 AM
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28029857/  
> ___ To post, send  
> message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe,  
> change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/ 
> mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this  
> large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the  
> list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web  
> archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the  
> messages to others.
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

[Jean Dudley]

A careful examination of the quoted text reveals that it is specific  
to human beings, both the recipients of the mark and the originator:   
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and  
bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:  
17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or  
the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom.  
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it  
is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and  
six."

Personally, while I am definitely familiar with the text, I am at a  
loss how the Amish can stretch it to include RFID chips in their  
cattle.  Not withstanding, however, I don't think that biblical  
interpretation is at question here.  The pertinent  questions are "Is  
Michigan requiring the implementation of RFID tags in cattle, and, if  
so, are the Amish exempt from the requirement under Michigan  
religious freedom law?"

Jean


On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14,  11:33 AM, David E. Guinn wrote:

> The "mark of the beast" is drawn from Revelations 13:16-18 and  
> refers to Satan's mark (666).
>
> David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
>
> Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:23:10 -0800
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>
> Getting my grammatical pedant on:  Shouldn't that be "mark in (or  
> on) the beast"?
>
> As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark.  I'm  
> just a photographer, after all.
> On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14,  11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote:
>
> Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast.
> I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i  
> don't see the relevance of the reference.
> Marc Stern
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish
>
> Complaint:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf
>
> DOJ Brief:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html
>
>  From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
> regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
> devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
> beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
> cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
> religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
> September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jean
> ___
> 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.
>
>
> Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.
> ___
> 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 

Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

[Jean Dudley]

Getting my grammatical pedant on:  Shouldn't that be "mark in (or on)  
the beast"?


As for references to Smith and Twombly, I'm in the utter dark.  I'm  
just a photographer, after all.

On Nov 14, 2008, at Fri, Nov 14,  11:10 AM, Marc Stern wrote:


Plainly the use of id's on cattle is a mark of the beast.
I am  puzzled by Professor Masinter's s reference to Twombly-i  
don't see the relevance of the reference.

Marc Stern

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman

Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

Complaint:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/satanfiling.pdf

DOJ Brief:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/beast.pdf




On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jean Dudley  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html

 From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan
regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification
devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the
beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over
cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental
religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in
September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."

Thoughts?

Jean
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

[Jean Dudley]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/bush-administra.html

 From the Wired article:  "The Amish farmers claim  Michigan  
regulations requiring them to use radio frequency identification  
devices on their cattle "constitutes some form of a 'mark of the  
beast' and/or represents an infringement of their 'dominion over  
cattle and all living things' in violation of their fundamental  
religious beliefs," according to the farmers' lawsuit filed in  
September in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."

Thoughts?

Jean
___
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: Conflicts between religious exercise and gay rights

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 5, 2008, at Tue, Aug 5,  9:02 AM, Engelken, Sheri wrote:

> Religious beliefs can serve as justifications for many types of  
> conduct that we condemn, e.g., slavery, wife-beating, concubinage,  
> genocide.  Discrimination, be it based on race, ethnicity, gender,  
> sexual preference, or other irrelevant personal status, is to be  
> condemned.  No one forces service providers to run and operate  
> places of public accommodation.  Choosing to do so, when it flies  
> in the face of one's religious beliefs, is self-selected conflict.   
> The individual discriminated again is not in a similar "choice"  
> position.  And telling victims of discrimination that they should  
> look for alternatives -- non-discriminatory service providers -- is  
> not a proper solution.  That's reminiscent of black Americans  
> facing Jim Crow practices being told "we don't serve blacks here"  
> and having to look for and ultimately find alternative services  
> where such practices weren't in use.
>
> Service providers with discriminatory religious beliefs don't face  
> any restriction on their beliefs from public accommodations laws.   
> They're just barred from engaging in unlawful conduct, i.e.,  
> refusing to provide a non-religious service they willingly provide  
> to others not in the class at issue.  This isn't about whether you  
> have to ordain women or allow people in the class to participate in  
> religious activities in ways that impinge on religious beliefs.   
> This is about whether providers of non-religious services (public  
> accommodations) should be permitted to engage in the unlawful  
> conduct of discrimination.
>
> SJE
>
> Sheri J Engelken
> Gonzaga University School of Law
> PO Box 3528; 721 N Cincinnati
> Spokane, WA 99220
> 509 313 5891
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Devil's advocate:

It could be counter-argued that people seeking public services aren't  
forced to do so, either.  Why shouldn't customers be told to seek  
alternate services?

Non-devil's advocate: I can see a few exceptions;  The woman who is  
prescribed oral contraceptives to treat a medical condition, and the  
only pharmacist in the county refuses to dispense because of his  
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: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666

[Jean Dudley]

Another thought occurs to me;  If the law were to be renumbered, that  
would constitute an endorsement of religion.  The angle here is to  
present the law as simply sequential according to the rules of  
mathematics, in order to avoid an establishment of religion.  Do they  
skip the number 13 in the federal statutes?
___
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: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666

[Jean Dudley]

That's a perfectly plausible conclusion -- in fact it is the
conclusion the Court reached in Smith.  But federal and state  
RFRAs, and

state constitutional provisions that have been interpreted as
implementing a Sherbert-like regime, expressly assume the  
opposite.  So

the question is how the case should come out under those regimes.


Unfortunately, I must bow out of the dialog at this point because I  
am ignorant of Smith and Sherbert regimes. 
 ___
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: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 31, 2008, at Thu, Jul 31,  2:57 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>   Well, I do think that the relatively small amount at issue in
> the case -- and the great deal of effort he must have devoted -- is  
> some
> evidence of sincerity.  Cf. the court's statement that "Similarly,
> before this court, Mr. Sherrod stated in oral argument that only  
> one of
> the issues he raised in his brief is of importance to him, i.e., that
> the particular means chosen by the Department to enforce his  
> obligation
> violates his religious beliefs.  Mr. Sherrod declared that he believes
> that parents have an obligation to support their children, that
> appropriate legislation to enforce that duty of support in appropriate
> cases is warranted, and that the only reason he has chosen to appeal a
> judicial decision involving a relatively small sum of money is that  
> his
> conscience requires it."

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you, Eugene.  Amount of  
money spent avoiding child support often exceeds the amount owed, for  
the stated reason that fathers vindictively withhold funds in order  
to punish the estranged ex-spouse.  I think this is the case here.   
Spite is a powerful motivator, IMO.  He just doesn't have the guts to  
own his spitefulness. This is further born out by the fact that he  
neglected his financial responsibility until he was told to pay child  
support.
>
>   But in any case, if the legal question is sincerity, there would
> have be to an evidentiary hearing, and if the trial judge is unwilling
> to conclude that Mr. Sherrod is insincere, then the sincerity question
> would be decided in Mr. Sherrod's favor, and our views and the  
> appellate
> judges' views would be irrelevant.
>
>   As to the rest of the argument below, I don't think it can work
> under Thomas v. Employment Division.  It is not for a court to decide
> what's the best reading of Revelations, or whether the federal statute
> indeed sufficiently bears the mark of the beast, or whether "mark  
> of the
> beast" should be read literally -- just as it's not for a court to
> decide whether someone who refuses to eat meat and milk is properly
> interpreting "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk," or
> whether someone who refuses to work on tank turrets is properly
> interpreting his religion's commands of pacifism (that's the Thomas  
> case
> itself).  The question is whether Sherrod's religious belief is  
> sincere,
> not whether it's a sensible interpretation of the Bible.

Yes, I suppose that is a valid reason.  In that case, sincerity  
shouldn't matter either, should it?  The law is the law, regardless  
of the sequential number assigned to it.  Moral obligation to uphold  
the law (in this case pay child support, and of course the moral  
obligation to pay child support as well) should over ride religious  
sincerity.  In short, do the right and legal thing even if it is to  
an "agent/agency of Satan".
>
>   Eugene
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
>> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:14 PM
>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>> Subject: Re: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666
>>
>> *blink*
>> OK, this guy wins the "Most Creative Deadbeat Dad of the Year" award.
>>
>> Forgive me, Eugene, but there is a limit to my ability to
>> suspend disbelief.  I simply find myself able to assume that
>> this guy is sincere.  I might be able to swallow it if he
>> were to send a check to the mother of his children for the
>> amount that he is in arrears instead of handing it over to the court.
>>
>> OK, ok, I'll give it my best shot:  He should not prevail
>> because he is not ordered to submit to the dictates of the
>> beast bearing the number 666, he is being ordered to comply
>> with *Federal Statute 42 USC Sec. 666*.  Simply having a
>> sequential number does not make a law the Beast of Revelations 13.
>>
>> Somebody kindly relieve me of my ignorance;  is there any
>> reason why Human Services can't use an argument against
>> Sherrod's claim based on further context from the quoted
>> text?  Specifically, can the attorney point out that since
>> Human Services has not required Mr. Sherrod to receive the
>> mark of the beast on his hand or forehead, they cannot
>> possibly be the beast?  CF: "He causes all, both small and
>> great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on
>> their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may
>> buy or sel

Re: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666

[Jean Dudley]

*blink*
OK, this guy wins the "Most Creative Deadbeat Dad of the Year" award.

Forgive me, Eugene, but there is a limit to my ability to suspend  
disbelief.  I simply find myself able to assume that this guy is  
sincere.  I might be able to swallow it if he were to send a check to  
the mother of his children for the amount that he is in arrears  
instead of handing it over to the court.

OK, ok, I'll give it my best shot:  He should not prevail because he  
is not ordered to submit to the dictates of the beast bearing the  
number 666, he is being ordered to comply with *Federal Statute 42  
USC Sec. 666*.  Simply having a sequential number does not make a law  
the Beast of Revelations 13.

Somebody kindly relieve me of my ignorance;  is there any reason why  
Human Services can't use an argument against Sherrod's claim based on  
further context from the quoted text?  Specifically, can the attorney  
point out that since Human Services has not required Mr. Sherrod to  
receive the mark of the beast on his hand or forehead, they cannot  
possibly be the beast?  CF: "He causes all, both small and great,  
rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand  
or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who  
has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”  
Revelation 13:16-17

Just askin'.
Jean Dudley

On Jul 31, 2008, at Thu, Jul 31,  12:46 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>   Sherrod v. Tenn. Dep't of Human Servs., 2008 WL 2894691 (Tenn.
> Ct. App.), involves a father who refused to pay his child support,
> partly because "Mr. Sherrod states that he is a Born Again  
> Christian and
> a Sunday School teacher and that he is greatly disturbed that DHS is
> attempting to compel him to submit to an order which relies for its
> authority upon a federal statute, 42 USC sec. 666.  He cites us to the
> Book of Revelations, where the number 666 is associated with the 'Mark
> of the Beast' and the end of days."
>
>   Assume Sherrod is sincere, not implausible given his willingness
> to fight the matter at trial and on appeal over $1,188 in arrearages
> (granted, he's litigating pro se, but this presumably has taken a good
> deal of time and effort, and some money, on his part).  Assume also  
> that
> a strict scrutiny regime applies.  (Whether because Sherrod didn't  
> raise
> RFRA or whether because for some reason RFRA is inapplicable givne the
> procedural posture, this particular court applied the Smith approach.)
>
>   Should Sherrod prevail?  I take it that the government could
> just reenact 42 USC sec. 666 as 42 USC sec. something-else, and thus
> alleviate the burden on Sherrod's religion; does that make  
> enforcing 42
> USC 666 not the least restrictive alternative?  Or are alternatives  
> that
> involve having Congress take the time and effort to renumber a statute
> (or enact a duplicate copy) just too burdensome to be considered as  
> part
> of the least restrictive alternative inquiry (or are otherwise  
> improper
> for consideration).
>
>   I should say, by the way, that I don't think Sherrod should win
> as a matter of principles, nor do I think it likely that he would in
> fact win even under a RFRA-like regime.  But that's partly because I
> support Smith, and while I support statutory RFRAs, I think strict
> scrutiny is the wrong standard for them to use.  So I wanted to probe
> what ought to happen under a Sherbert/Yoder regime, as honestly  
> applied.
>
>   Eugene
> ___
> 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: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24,  7:37 PM, Gordon James  
Klingenschmitt wrote:

> Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point!  (Albeit in more colorful  
> language :).
>
> Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non- 
> sectarian religion as "the government's favored religion" or "the  
> government's favored non-sectarian god."
>
> ON THE CONTRARY, our form of government was established "to secure  
> the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain  
> and establish this Constitution for the United States of  
> America..."  which means PROTECTING each citizen's right to speak  
> their mind, and pray according to personal conscience, (even in  
> government forums, even as public officials), taking turns with  
> equal opportunity.

And this is where my esteemed colleague* Mr. Klingenschmitt and I  
part company;  I personally believe that prayer has no place in  
government forums.  Not even to take turns with equal opportunity.   
If an ordained clergy cannot offer a non-sectarian prayer, they  
exclude those members of the audience (there on government  
business).  That is counter to the spirit of establishment clause.   
Further, I see no reason why prayer should be included in any  
government forum as part of the proceedings.  I'm of the mind that  
what gods there may be watching would rather we use our own best  
judgement rather than appealing to celestial parental figures for  
guidance or blessings.

I find it disingenuous to claim that praying in Jesus' name is  
banned;  It's happening all over America, and no one has gone to  
prison for it that I'm aware of.   Finally, I'd like to suggest to   
Mr. Klingenschmidt to read Matthew 6.  Note especially verse 6, and  
that the example prayer does not contain the phrase "in Jesus'  
name."  He might find this URL helpful : http://voiceofjesus.org/ 
whenyoupray1.html

Jean Dudley
*Ordained minister, and served in the US military for 9 years.  But  
not as a chaplain.  My ministry was not funded by the US government  
in any way.
___
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: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'

[Jean Dudley]

On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24,  2:51 PM, Gordon James  
Klingenschmitt wrote:

> Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I  
> believe seems to involve whether a government can pray, at all.  We  
> all agree individuals can pray, and the First Amendment protects  
> individual speech by private citizens.  But can governments pray?

Ostensibly, one particular form of government can pray;  a  
theocracy.  I suppose a monarchy such as the United Kingdom can pray  
as well, if the monarch is also the head of the state church.   
However, we are a representative democracy, and if *our* government  
prays, the prayer will of necessity be sectarian, and therefore  
exclusionary of other sects, and by default will be endorsing one  
religion over another and thus we have ipso facto a state religion.   
All well and fine it it's *your* religion, but not so fine if its not  
*your* religion.

Perhaps, Mr. Klingenschmitt, your question should be "should  
governments pray?".  To which I would answer a resounding, emphatic,  
"Not just no, but HELL NO!"

Jean Dudley
___
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: Lee v. Weisman and compulsion to photograph a religious ceremony

[Jean Dudley]

All good questions, certainly;  However, my question is how a wedding  
photographer is considered "public accomodation".  Food, housing,  
retail, banking, dispensing pharmaceuticals, all of these are  
undoubtedly "public accomodation".  They are necessary to participate  
in society, and for basic human needs.  Why is photographing a  
commitment ceremony or wedding considered necessary?

Disclosure:  I am a lesbian and a landscape photographer.
Jean.


On Apr 15, 2008, at Tue, Apr 15,  6:55 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>   Last week, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that
> Elane Photography (a husband-and-wife photography business for  
> which the
> primary photographer is the wife, Elaine Huguenin) violate New Mexico
> public accommodation discrimination law by refusing to photograph a
> same-sex commitment ceremony.  The Commission ordered the Huguenins to
> pay $6600 in costs and attorney fees.  (For more, see
> http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1207764182.shtml .)
>
>   People have discussed elsewhere the compelled speech dimension
> of the case, and in January we discussed on the list the New Mexico  
> RFRA
> issues.  But let me ask a different question:  I've just learned that
> the ceremony that Huguenin would have had to photograph was likely a
> religious ceremony -- it was conducted by a minister, so I take it  
> that
> it likely had some religious dimension, even if only a modest one --
> though the record is silent on whether it would have been performed  
> in a
> church.  Would imposing such a requirement on someone constitute
> impermissible coercion to participate in religious activity under Lee?
> (I realize that this argument would not apply to a requirement to
> photograph the secular reception.)
>
>   Of course, having to photograph a religious ceremony doesn't
> involve having to say a prayer or perform any ritual.  But likewise
> having to stand silent (even if that was coerced) during a prayer also
> doesn't involve having to say a prayer or perform any ritual (unless
> silent standing is seen as a ritual during a prayer can be seen as a
> ritual, but then why wouldn't silent standing during a religious  
> wedding
> be seen the same way?).  I tend to think that Scalia was right in his
> Lee dissent to say that no religious activity was actually coerced  
> there
> -- but given the majority's contrary conclusion, how would we resolve
> the question related to a requirement that one attend and photograph a
> religious wedding?
>
>   Eugene
> ___
> 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: RLUIPA and inmates' right to have sex with their spouses

[Jean Dudley]

I'll be honest:  I'm not at all familiar with either case, not being  
a lawyer nor studied law.   However, the whole deal with conjugal  
visits strikes me as a human rights issue, for those on the outside  
as well as those on the inside, and not one of religious rights.   
Couple that with the incredibly high instance of unprosecuted rape in  
prison, and it's easy to see why Amnesty International has listed the  
US prison system major violators of human rights.

Just my two cents worth.
Jean.
On Jan 18, 2008, at Fri, Jan 18,  3:48 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

> Jean Dudley writes:
>
>> I'd say that yes, the courts would have to uphold conjugal visits.
>
>   OK, say that this is so.  Now would that create problems of
> discrimination in favor of religion that are far more serious than the
> norm (a normal level of discrimination which Cutter v. Wilkinson did
> accept), and far closer to the level that the Court struggled to avoid
> in Seeger?  After all, if the rule is "You aren't allowed to have sex
> with your wife [or any other woman] ever again -- unless you're of the
> right religion," that's a pretty serious thing to treat people
> differently about, and pretty clearly the sort of thing that could  
> quite
> easily pressure someone to get religion (or to fake getting it).
>
>> Let's take it one step further:  What if a woman is
>> incarcerated, and it was her husband who was filing suit
>> saying that his religious duty was being infringed upon?
>
>   Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure he'd lose, since RLUIPA only
> protects institutionalized persons.  But if he managed to convert  
> her to
> a religion that imposes the proper requirements on her, then she could
> file her own claim.
> ___
> 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: RLUIPA and inmates' right to have sex with their spouses

[Jean Dudley]

I'd say that yes, the courts would have to uphold conjugal visits.   
Let's take it one step further:  What if a woman is incarcerated, and  
it was her husband who was filing suit saying that his religious duty  
was being infringed upon?


On Jan 18, 2008, at Fri, Jan 18,  3:19 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>   From Bryant v. Tilton, 2008 WL 149990 (E.D. Cal. 2008):  "On
> March 9, 2007, plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint,
> challenging the constitutionality of the Family (Overnight) Visiting
> program as adopted by the California Department of Corrections and
> Rehabilitation (CDCR).  He alleges that he has been incarcerated since
> 1979 and is serving two concurrent life terms of imprisonment for
> murder.  Plaintiff also alleges that he wed in 1993 and was allowed to
> participate in the family visiting program at that time.  Plaintiff
> alleges that sometime in 1997, the CDCR amended the family visiting
> program to exclude inmates with certain classifications, inmates  
> who had
> been convicted of certain offenses and inmates, such as himself,  
> who do
> not have parole dates established by the Board of Prison Terms 
>
>   "Plaintiff ... contends that his exclusion from the program
> violates his rights under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and
> the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ('RLUIPA')
> because, as a Muslim, he must consummate his marriage within four  
> months
> pursuant to Islamic law, or his wife may file for annulment or  
> divorce."
>
>   Now the court rejects this claim on the facts:  "Here, plaintiff
> has failed to sufficiently allege that the regulation in question
> infringes on or substantially burdens his free exercise of religion.
> Plaintiff alleges merely that the regulation violates his free  
> exercise
> rights because, under Islamic law, his wife may file for an  
> annulment or
> divorce if their marriage is not consummated within four months.
> However, as defendants point out, plaintiff wed in 1993 and at that  
> time
> he was able to participate in the family visiting program.  In fact,
> plaintiff participated in the program until 1997.  The allegations of
> the complaint in this regard, even accepted as true, fail to establish
> that plaintiff was impeded in the exercise of his religion by the
> challenged regulation."
>
>
>   My question:  Say the facts were a little different, and the
> inmate believed -- in a not implausible reading of Jewish law, see
> http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm -- that "A man has a duty to give his  
> wife
> sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her."  Would
> RLUIPA therefore mandate that the prison provide the inmate with
> conjugal visits?
>
>   Eugene
> ___
> 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: Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?

[Jean Dudley]

On Dec 20, 2007, at Thu, Dec 20,  8:47 AM, Esenberg, Richard wrote:

“My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with  
an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with  
enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God  
does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar.”




It’s a worthy distinction and one that might apply just as well to  
religious and moral arguments from the left. I may regard concern  
for the poor and sharing of my wealth as a religious and moral  
duty, but not believe (at least beyond a certain level) that it  
ought to be a matter of state compulsion.




Although it does not undercut Douglas Laycock’s observation about  
the nine, I should point out, for the record, that Pete Stark has  
“come out” as an atheist. (He’s the Unitarian.)




For those who keep it, Merry Christmas



It occurs to me that the distinction between compulsory taxation and  
compulsory religious observance is that one is prohibited by the  
Constitution, and the other is mandated by the Constitution. 
 ___
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 Caganer: Maybe there is hope for Christians after all...

[Jean Dudley]

On Dec 16, 2007, at Sun, Dec 16,  3:19 PM, James Manning wrote:


As for the actual resolution, which

"(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical  
importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;


(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christian and  
Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the  
formation of the western civilization;


(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians,  
both in the United States and worldwide..."


I wonder if it is broadminded enough to acknowledge and support the  
CAGANER in my decidedly non mainstream nativity scene. I hope  
everyone will look at these links and enjoy some Holiday diversity.  
You really shouldn't skip this. It's fun and you might learn  
something.


http://100percentinjuryrate.blogspot.com/2007/11/nothing-says- 
christmas-like-defecating.html


http://deadspin.com/sports/pau-gasol-poops/something-for-the- 
grizzlies-fan-who-has-everything-326345.php


CAGANER -- This one explains it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caganer

Happy Christmahanakwanzaka everyone!


James,

I don't see why they wouldn't support the Caganer;  after all, the  
religion that has contributed so much to the development of Western  
culture and civilization can afford a bit of self defi--er, deprication.


Just out of curiosity, does your creche have pink balloons and a  
banner that read "It's a girl!"?

Jean



___
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: The Impaler's Wall

[Jean Dudley]

The only way I can view this is as satire.  Come on;  impalement?  He  
can't be serious.  As for the wall of religious beliefs, it's going  
to have to be a very long wall.  I personally can think of several  
issues that need the money more desperately.  But I'll give him a A  
for inclusive thinking.

BTW, since Paganism is a religious group, like Christianity, its self- 
identified members should be called Pagans, not "pagans".
Jean
On Dec 16, 2007, at Sun, Dec 16,  12:48 PM, Will Linden wrote:

>   Since people are worrying about "the right" having the nerve to  
> extol
> their own religion(s), I note that I got no reactions to this one  
> back in
> January, so i post it again::
>
>
>   Net.gossip is now giving its attention to Sharkey "the Impaler"
> announcing that he is running for governor of Minnesota as the  
> "Vampyre's
> Witches and Pagans Party". (Any pagans present go yell at him, not  
> me...
> http://johnathonforgovernor.us), with a platform which calls for  
> the public
> impalement of "convicted terrorists".
>
> I found on reading his agenda that he proposes to
>
>
> "erect the "Wall of Religious
> Beliefs" in the Capital. This wall will have everything
> from the Wiccan Rede to the 10 Commandments."
>
>   So, is this project considered sufficiently nondiscriminatory? Or  
> would
> it be assailed as an establishment of "religion", as opposed to  
> irreligion?
> Or does the aim of extolling religious freedom constitute an  
> overriding
> secular purpose?
>
>
> ___
> 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: alarming new law?

[Jean Dudley]

Susan, email me privately for celebration details.  ;-)

As for the unanimousity (is that a word?  It is now!) of the Ramadan  
resolution, it had 42 votes of "present".   We may be straining at  
gnats and swallowing camels here, but that hardly seems "unanimous"  
to me.

Jean
On Dec 16, 2007, at Sun, Dec 16,  12:28 AM, Susan Freiman wrote:

> Jean, I'll be glad to celebrate with you, whatever holidays you like!
>
> I'd be interested to know how the Islam resolution passed unanimously,
> and Christianity had nine votes against.  Maybe for Islam a lot of
> Representatives were absent?
>
> Are we getting too far off topic and annoying people here?  If so, I'm
> sorry, and I'll stop.
>
> Susan
>
> Jean Dudley wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15,  9:36 PM, Gordon James
>> Klingenschmitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already "lived long enough" to see
>>> a House resolution like this passed honoring other
>>> religionsincluding Islamunanimously this year.
>>>
>>
>> I stand corrected, Mr. Klingenschmitt.  Would you kindly cite the
>> resolution numbers for the following honored religions?
>>
>> Wicca
>> Buddhism
>> Shinto
>> Zorastrian
>> Judaism
>> Asatru
>> Secular Humanism/Atheism (prolly not religions, but hey, I've heard
>> Christians arguing that they were, so why not?)
>>
>> My point still stands.  In a country dominated by Christians, isn't
>> it self-serving to "honor" themselves?  Especially in light of the
>> recent attack on Jews in a New York subway by self-identified
>> Christians?  Neither sounds very Christian to me.  Christianity is
>> the default;  Our legal holidays are based on many Christian
>> holidays.  Non-Christians are ridiculed, attacked, defamed and have
>> to fight for our rights at every turn.
>>
>> Jean
>> Blessed Yuletide in the names of the Oak and Holly kings, and the
>> Maiden, Mother and Crone.  I'll see your Jesus, and raise you a
>> pantheon.
>>
>> ___
>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
>> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
>> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list  
>> members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: alarming new law?

[Jean Dudley]

I've seen several comments, here and in cited materials, that this  
isn't the first resolution regarding Christmas;  I've found one other  
one after a quick Google search, resolving to "protect the symbols  
and traditions of Christmas" in 2005.  Can anyone here cite some  
other ones for me?

Thank you.
Jean
___
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: alarming new law?

[Jean Dudley]

On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15,  9:36 PM, Gordon James  
Klingenschmitt wrote:

> Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already "lived long enough" to see  
> a House resolution like this passed honoring other  
> religionsincluding Islamunanimously this year.

I stand corrected, Mr. Klingenschmitt.  Would you kindly cite the  
resolution numbers for the following honored religions?

Wicca
Buddhism
Shinto
Zorastrian
Judaism
Asatru
Secular Humanism/Atheism (prolly not religions, but hey, I've heard  
Christians arguing that they were, so why not?)

My point still stands.  In a country dominated by Christians, isn't  
it self-serving to "honor" themselves?  Especially in light of the  
recent attack on Jews in a New York subway by self-identified  
Christians?  Neither sounds very Christian to me.  Christianity is  
the default;  Our legal holidays are based on many Christian  
holidays.  Non-Christians are ridiculed, attacked, defamed and have  
to fight for our rights at every turn.

Jean
Blessed Yuletide in the names of the Oak and Holly kings, and the  
Maiden, Mother and Crone.  I'll see your Jesus, and raise you a  
pantheon. 
  
___
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: alarming new law?

[Jean Dudley]

On Dec 16, 2007, at Sun, Dec 16,  5:40 AM, Richard Dougherty wrote:

Well, maybe you will; see below.  Congress does this sort of thing  
regularly.  (Haven't seen one for atheists yet, but I can't keep up.)


Marty: Do you think the "whereas" you cited that was left out was  
omitted because it was too over the top, or because the wording of  
it might actually divide Christians?  (I'm thinking of the specific  
reference to the Bible especially.)


Richard J. Dougherty

Resolution on Buddhism (Vietnam):
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Dec/01-499319.html


Which urges VIETNAM to allow freedom for Buddhists.  It doesn't list  
the prevalence of Buddhism in the USA.  In fact, it doesn't mention  
Buddhism in the USA at all.  It's a smackdown on Vietnam, and not an  
honoring of a particular religious group in America.



Resolution on Judaism:
http://www.350th.org/commission/Jewish%20350th%20Res%20passes% 
20Joint%2011-24.pdf


This one is better;  However, it "honors and recognizes the  350th  
anniversary of the American Jewish Community" and doesn't "honor"  
Judaism in America.  Oddly, no mention of the particular beliefs of  
Judaism are enumerated, as they were regarding Christianity and  
Christmas.



Resolution on Islam:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile- 
english&x=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384&m=October

On Ramadan:
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14293


One and the same, actually;  I can't find a resolution on Islam.  Of  
all three, this one is the closest to the current Christmas  
resolution;  However, it makes little mention of the (non) prominence  
of Islam in America, no boastful numbers of how many there are on our  
shores.  In fact, it leaves out the fact that Islam is one of the  
world's fastest growing religious bodies.  Further, it doesn't  
mention specific religious beliefs to the degree that the Christian/ 
Christmas resolution does.  Finally, it was not passed  
"unanimously".  42 representatives couldn't even stand up honestly  
and say "no".  They voted "present".  42, compared to 9 who stood  
against the Christian/Christmas resolution.


I remain unconvinced, Mr. Dougherty.  None of the resolutions you  
cited are analogous to the recent HR resolution.  They strike me as  
gracious acknowledgments of other peoples and religions, or a  
condemnation of religious persecution in the case of the first one.   
Once Islam overtakes Christianity as the dominant religion in the US,  
and they pass a resolution regarding Christmas, THEN we will see  
equality.


FYI:  I am writing under an assumed name on this list for many  
reasons.  I am using my grandmother's name, who was a registered  
Republican.  It was her grace and dignity that inspired me, and she  
used to say that it's rude to wear a mink coat to volunteer at the  
soup kitchen.  It strikes me hubris pure and simple that a legal body  
comprised mostly of self-identified Christians pass a resolution to  
honor their own holiday.   If that's "PC", then I am proud to be PC.   
My grandmother would call it being polite.


Jean___
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: alarming new law?

[Jean Dudley]

It's not a law, it's a "non-binding resolution".  Legally, it's  
pabulum.  Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO.  What effects  
it has on society at large is up for speculation.  I see it as  
indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are "persecuted" here  
and the world over.  Of course they are;  As are Jews, Muslims,  
Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset.  Susan, you and  
I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other  
religion in the good ol' US of A.


Jean
On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15,  8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote:


This just came to me from an atheists' list.  Is it true?

Susan
~~`

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting  
Religions


(December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular  
Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House  
of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law,  
under the misleading title "Recognizing the Importance of Christm  
as and the Christian Faith" passed the House with overwhelming  
bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious  
tolerance necessary in these changing times.


Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four  
Jewish men in New York City  were attacked on the subway for  
replying to a group of ten people who wished them a "Merry  
Christmas" with a similar greeting: "Happy Hanukkah.  For this,  
these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who  
came to their physical defense.  The actions of the Congress, by  
passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the  
Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse  
population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior.


The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the  
nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state  
in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given  
preference. The language of the House resolution effectively  
undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere  
where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like  
second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like  
those four Jewish subway riders in New York .


Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, "It is deplorable that in this day  
and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here  
in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames  
with preferential language in support of a single religion."  David  
Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted,  "Te First Amendment  
Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance  
that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should  
respect the intent of the Founders."


We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for  
religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a  
climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated  
equally.

__._,_.___
___
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: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory against antigayspeech?

[Jean Dudley]

On Nov 7, 2007, at Wednesday,November 7, 2007,3:28 PM, Volokh, Eugene  
wrote:

>   Help me out here:  The major purveyors of informal violence --
> murders, robberies, assaults, and the like -- are *not* street thugs?
> Who are they then?  The Phelps crowd?  Politically motivated right- 
> wing
> activists?
>
>   (I should say that as to one important class of informal
> violence, which is rape, bedroom thugs -- date-rapists -- are a more
> major purveyor than street thugs; but street thugs are a major  
> category
> even there, and *the* major category as to the other kinds of  
> violence.)
>
>   Eugene
>

Let's turn it over on its head:  Are the Ku Klux Klan "street  
thugs"?  Were the men who murdered Matthew Shepard "street thugs"?  I  
think not.  I also think there is a difference between the two  
groups:  One has a long-standing history, a complex organization, the  
other was simply (!) a matter of mob mentality on a smaller scale.   
Oddly enough, neither group would be called street thugs by other  
members of their community.  They's just a bunch of good ol' boys.

I think what's missing here is a distinction that "informal violence"  
by itself connotes random violence;  It must be qualified with the  
word "organized", and compared to "Official (or "formal") violence,  
defined as organized and sanctioned by law and or government.

In closing, the concept of "street thug" is misleading.  Only a  
miniscule amount of violence is perpetrated by the truly antisocial,  
psychopathic, or homeless.

Jean Dudley.
___
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: IIED and vagueness

[Jean Dudley]

On Nov 2, 2007, at Friday,November 2, 2007,7:14 AM, Scarberry, Mark  
wrote:
>
> I don't know that it's possible to discuss whether fighting words  
> are involved without discussing outrageousness. It is largely the  
> outrage caused by personally targeted speech that potentially makes  
> it fighting words. Let me say, though, that speech targeting a dead  
> soldier's family during a funeral is particularly likely to stir up  
> the very strong violence-inducing emotions that are associated with  
> fighting words. To the extent that a balancing is involved, of the  
> likelihood of the stirring up of such strong emotions versus the  
> speaker's need to engage in targeted speech at that time and place,  
> I'd suggest that labor picketing and abortion protests both are  
> aimed at those who, if persuaded, could act directly or relatively  
> directly on the message to change things in the world. Abortion  
> clinic patients (or would-be patients) and workers could decide  
> against having, or participating in the providing of, abortions.  
> Employers might decide to give the workers the contract they want,  
> and customers, by staying away from the business that is being  
> picketed, may in a relatively direct way affect the decision of the  
> business. By contrast, the families of dead soldiers have no direct  
> say in the military's policy on gays and lesbians. They have even  
> less ability indirectly to affect such policies than they would to  
> affect whether we continue our involvement in Iraq -- on that  
> latter issue they might have an influential voice (though that  
> still would be much more indirect than the abortion clinic or labor  
> picketing examples).
>
> Mark Scarberry
> Pepperdine

Something that has not been brought up in this discussion is the  
factor of the nature of grieving in our culture.  As a society, we  
tend to subdue our public grieving, making funerals solemn affairs.   
Yes, there are exceptions to this tendancy;  the famous New Orleans  
tradition of jazz bands at funeral processions is one.  It seems to  
me that this is part and parcel (if oddly reversed) to the clause  
"pursuit of happiness".  Grievers have the right to conduct their  
rituals of mourning as they see fit, without disruption from  
uninvited parties.  What laws provide assurance of this?  In Rhode  
Island, it is illegal to interrupt a funeral procession on the  
streets, to cut across the line of cars in a funeral procession.   
Conversely, there are laws regulating the procession, what roads can  
be utilized.  These laws are in place to protect the dignity and  
sanctity of the funeral rite.

In contrast, Planned Parenthood clinics are places of business, and  
do not have the implied privacy of grieving.  Laws have been put in  
place to limit the access of protesters;  when a protester verbally  
assaults a client of the clinic, that is actionable as assault.   
While I'm not familiar with the legal implication of "fighting  
words", it seems to me that given the fragile and volatile nature of  
grieving, specifically targeting a particular funeral with words  
intended to hurt could be construed as aggravated assault.  The same  
should be true of when a protester shouts "baby killer" in the face  
of a woman who is going to the clinic to renew her prescription of  
HIV medications and contraceptives.

Jean Dudley
I still think Mr. Phelps is lucky he wasn't attacked by the grieving  
relatives of the soldier.  There's a clear case of "Yer honor, he  
needed killin'" if I ever saw one. 
  
___
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: Speech and conduct

[Jean Dudley]

It occurs to me that all of this could have been avoided if the  
father of the deceased soldier, in a fit of grief-driven rage, had  
taken Mr. Phelp's (or possibly Mr. Phelp's daughter's) life and then  
claimed temporary insanity.

But then I might have been tempted to show up at the funeral with a  
sign that says "God hates homobigots".Would the Westboro Baptist  
Church have the right to sue me for damages?  Frankly, I suspect that  
this decision is going to be overturned, or at the very least, the  
amount will be lowered dramatically.  All I can say it's a damn shame  
there's no law against malicious bad manners in this country.

Jean Dudley
"You can't get blood from a turnip."

P. S.  Would someone kindly clue me in on what IIED stands for, please?
___
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: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think

[Jean Dudley]

On May 16, 2007, at 8:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

...God knows, as does Imus, there is almost nothing so fearful as  
to be subject to characterization as a hater in the current construct.


Wanna bet?  Try being the object of such hate.

Jean
Yes, this is the voice of experience.




___
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: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think

[Jean Dudley]

On May 16, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote:


much of Falwell's life was dedicated to undermining the establishment
clause, and indeed quite openly working for the establishment of his
faith as the official faith of America; it seems to me that any
discussion of his career is in the end a discussion about  
constitutional

law, unless Eugene, Will, and Sandy somehow think that on law, and
especially con law, is only about legal cases. If that is so then we
should just discuss Hustler.

I have always wondered why Falwell (or any of those in his church)  
were

reading Hustler in the first place.

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
 and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494


While I agree with Professor Finkelman about discussing the life of  
Falwell, I am going to gently remind him that Falwell and his friends  
didn't have to actually read Hustler to find out about the satirical  
ersatz ad.  Let's face it--word gets around, often through many hands.


Jean. 
___

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: Jerry Falwell Dies

[Jean Dudley]

I've been watching the reports all over the web--and am amazed at the  
restraint most liberal Democrat bloggers have taken;   I think the  
worst so far has been "I hope he has asbestos underwear".  One  
reffered to him as a "radical cleric".

On May 15, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Friedman, Howard M. wrote:


Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell died today at age 73.

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/05/moral-majority-founder- 
jerry-falwell.html


*
Howard M. Friedman
Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
University of Toledo College of Law
Toledo, OH 43606-3390
Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732
E-mail: [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.

Indiana License Plates

[Jean Dudley]

Specialty plates cost money;  But not if you want to proclaim your  
religiosity on the rear bumper of your car in Indiana.


http://fauxrealtho.com/2007/03/22/in-god-indiana-trusts/

The author brings up a very good point:  Indiana has a number of  
specialty license plates available, but the "In God We Trust" plates  
don't carry the extra fees that all the others do.  Why should those  
who identify with religion do so at taxpayer's expense?


It smacks of establishment of religion, to me.

Jean Dudley


___
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: Recommendation...

[Jean Dudley]

On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Stephen R. Prescott, Esq. wrote:Biblical law of course allows polygamy. I have two objections. Professor Finkleman’s statement quoted (cut and pasted, my typing is not good enough for me to type quotes) is at best, an overstatement. There simply is no Biblical law that says polygamy is fine, go for it guys, when she turns 40 trade her in for two 20-year olds.  A really bad joke a now deceased uncle of mine liked to tell.  Again, at most one might infer from the Bible that God or some of the diverse Biblical authors with contradictory views seemed to have no objection. My second object is that when Mr. Lofton asked where this Biblical law was, or in his words where in the Bible God approved of polygamy, he was hit with a barrage of “proof texting” that would embarrass the most shallow Bible thumper.  So and so did it, that proves there is a Biblical law endorsing polygamy. Further objections were met with disparaging comments. I am sure that it was an off-hand statement of something that was believed to be true.  When one has graded as many essay exams as I, and doubtless many others on this forum, have, you realize that people know many things that are not true.  It seems to be that Mr. Lofton made a valid point, even if not phrased in the most gracious wording possible.  The statement that “Biblical law of course allows polygamy” is at most an inference.  Again, I may just not get it, but that seems indisputable to me. Further pursuing this line of interaction is probably fruitless and it is getting pretty far from Religion and Law and closer to Biblical Interpretation.  I think we will have to just agree to disagree.  However, I do appreciate you engaging my views and thank you for your critique Mr. Brayton. Steve PrescottAt the risk of stretching an old, old memory to the breaking point, I do remember reading in the "Old Testement" (sic) certain laws regarding the legality of taking second or third wives from among the surviving women of your enemies, and how they must be allowed a certain amount of time to grieve for their dead before (apparently forcably) consummating the "marriage".  Compare it to our own Constitution which "legalized" slavery by including slaves in the count for representation in Congress, a point Prof. Finkleman makes very clear in his book on the subject.  I won't go into arguing whether or not G*d approves of polygamy.  My own personal opinion is that what laws there are in the Torah are there to deal with a culture already in existance, and to minimize what "sin" was there.  Most of the laws (as I remember reading them) seem to be about protecting the rights of the female(s).  It was something so ingrained in the culture that it wasn't going to go away with a few laws.  Much like abortion laws, which were put in place to protect women from back-ally butchers, more than about giving a moral blessing to what some consider "murder".  It was about minimizing damage, not giving blessing or approval.  Today, polygamy is viewed in our culture as something so inherently wrong that we don't question *why* it is wrong.  Some spout abuse as a reason.  Some say it is morally wrong because G*d said it was wrong.  Me, I'm not sure those are valid arguments.  I'd say any consenting adult can enter into a relationship of their choosing, regardless of number or gender.  But then, I'm a bleeding-heart hippie liberal Pagan.  Jean___
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: Rep. Harris (R-Fla.) on Church and State

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


God is absolutely in control.

"By me kings reign
and rulers decree justice
By me princes rule, and nobles
all the judges of the earth."  Proverbs 8:15-16 (NKJV)

Debra Cook


With all due respect, Ms. Cook, I see no reference to elected  
officials in that particular verse.  Nor do we have any princes or  
noble class in the United States.  And frankly, the rulers of this  
land AREN'T decreeing justice.  So ultimately, we can waste our time  
debating whether or not your god is in control--but this isn't the  
place for it.  We are a secular nation, not a theocracy.  If your god  
has a problem with that, your god can certainly make it clear if s/he  
chooses.  Which s/he hasn't done to my satisfaction, and so IMNSHO,  
has left it up to you and me to make what we will of this nation.   
Leave your god out of the discussion, if you please.


Jean Dudley

___
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: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 14, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Alan Brownstein wrote:





Jean makes an important point here when she states,

"I'm thinking that should a parent choose to take a vow of poverty,  
they

should be required to perform community service in lieu of child
support.  Give back to the community that is supporting their child."

The state's interest here isn't making sure that a child receives
adequate food and shelter. That can be provided by the state. The
state's interest is money. Similarly, those of us who support  
religious
exemptions want the religious individual to be free to follow his  
or her

conscience -- but we are not particularly interested in providing a
religious individual secular benefits incidental to the granting of an
exemption. One way to simultaneously offset the state's increased  
costs
and reduce the secular benefit resulting from an exemption is to  
require
the religious individual to do community service -- or some other  
action
that serves the public good and disgorges the secular benefit he or  
she

has received.

Shameless plug. I have an article coming out soon exploring this  
general

issue in more depth.

Alan Brownstein



OK, let's take it to the next level:  Let's say the parent opts to  
work for the Church doing religious outreach;  would that count as  
"community service"?  How about (yes, it's an extreme case) working  
at a church-run medical clinic that discriminates based on religion  
or religious belief?  Or should a judge assign secular tasks?


Jean
___
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: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:


Well, recall that under Thomas v. Review Board, you don't need
an "official" belief of any well-established religious group -- a
person's idiosyncratic religious belief, if held sincerely, would
qualify.  We thus can't simply say there's no substantial burden in  
such

cases, I think, though a strict scrutiny argument would always be
available.

As to the argument that strict scrutiny is satisfied because
otherwise the burden of supporting the child would fall on the
government, and that would violate the Establishment Clause:  Can that
be consistent with Sherbert, where the government was in fact required
to support someone who for religious reasons refused to take a job  
that
would support herself?  The Court faced an Establishment Clause  
argument

there, and rejected it.


Good points, Eugene.  So conscience is the key here, not necessarily  
religious believe.  How does one prove sincerity of belief--is it the  
government's responsibility to disprove sincerity of belief, or is it  
the plaintiff's responsibility to prove sincerity?  I'm ignorant of  
"strict scrutiny";  I'm understanding that Washington State provides  
for individual cases in its constitution, and make exceptions?


I'm still not convinced that Sherbert applies here:  Again, I'll  
plead ignorance of the case--did the plaintiff have children to  
support?  Frankly, I know I'm working this backwards.  I believe that  
regardless of sincere religious conviction, a parent (regardless of  
gender) should be not be relieved of the burden of financial  
responsibility to their child.  I'm thinking that should a parent  
choose to take a vow of poverty, they should be required to perform  
community service in lieu of child support.  Give back to the  
community that is supporting their child.


If that parent's right to strict scrutiny is being denied, by all  
means, that needs to be rectified.


Jean Dudley.
And thank you for educating me so far. 
___

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: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:


In re Didier, 2006 WL 2258571 (Wash. App.), raises an
interesting question (though it's possible that on the facts in this
particular case the objection was insincere):  Should parents who are
unemployed or underemployed for religious reasons -- for instance,
because they have taken a vow of poverty and committed themselves to a
monastic or missionary life -- be exempted from a child support
obligation that's based on the income the parent would have had if he
had been gainfully employed?

The Washington Court of Appeals says no, citing Smith; but it
doesn't discuss the possibility that this might be an "individualized
exemptions" case a la Sherbert, and it doesn't the Washington state
constitution, which has been interpreted as mandating strict  
scrutiny in

religious exemption cases.  What  do people think would be the right
answer under either of those doctrines?  See also Hunt v. Hunt, a
mid-1990s Vermont case on the subject.

Eugene


With all due respect for those answering a calling to a religious  
vocation, I can't think of a single religion that relieves a person  
of the burden of financial responsibility to the child.  The rights  
of that child supersede those of the progenetor/-trix.  Monastary,  
missionary or being fired for not performing the duties of your job  
for "religious reasons" makes no difference.  Otherwise the burden of  
support falls on the government, and *that* is a violation of EC.


Jean Dudley
___
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: Teenagers &The Spirit of Liberty

[Jean Dudley]

On May 23, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:


 
The students who prayed were trying to assert their own right to be 
equal members of the political community in the face of a court order 
treating a student speaker's religious expression as unequal to 
secular expression.


They aren't "equal members of the political community".  They are the 
MAJORITY and they were using that majority status to intimidate and 
harass that one student.  They are bullies.


Religion (of any particular flavor, but ESPECIALLY of the minority) has 
NO PLACE in public schools, and this seems to be something that has 
been forced on those not of Christian religious affiliation, to the 
point of fear of persecution.


Freedom of religious expression and spirit of liberty, my lilly-white...

*fume*
Jean Dudley.

___
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: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:


Homosexuality was banned -- with serious enforcement -- by the
officially atheist (both de jure and de facto) Soviet government.  GSS
surveys reveal that a substantial fraction of nonreligious people
(though a smaller fraction than of religious people) believes
homosexuality is wrong.  This doesn't make the bans on homosexual
conduct are right; I think they're quite wrong.  But it does help show
that they're not inherently religious.



I'd argue two points:  First, I thought we were discussing American 
law, not Russian.  Secondly, if we do consider other countries, Russia 
banned homosexuality based on rationalized, culturalized homophobia, 
not "reason".  I'd say that's also the source of the "substantial 
fraction of nonreligious people" who think homosexuality is wrong.  
They can't offer a sound, objective reason why it's wrong.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Ed Brayton wrote:

Again, if the resolution went the other way - if the board had adopted 
a resolution praising the Catholic Church's position on gay adoption - 
I highly doubt you would be saying that it's up to the people of San 
Francisco to vote them out. I know I wouldn't, I'd be demanding an 
ACLU suit immediately to get an injunction against the city giving 
official endorsements to church doctrine.





You're assuming.  It's a resolution, it has no legal binding.  And if I 
can put up with laws making me a criminal based on what I do with other 
consenting adults, I can put up with the supervisors of San Fransisco 
praising or condemning the Catholic church.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Will Linden wrote:

I am irked enough when some private ideologue claims to be speaking 
for "New York" (or some denominational bureaucrat claims to be 
speaking for "Swedenborgians"), but officials are elected to run 
municipal administration, not to be my (alleged) mouthpiece on current 
issues, and this is none of their business.


Isn't that what a democratic republic is?  Ideologues speaking for 
their constituents?  --

Edie
"Sorry for the inconvenience".
-God's Final Message to His Creation
("So Long and Thanks for all the Fish", D. Adams)

___
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: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 6, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Alan Brownstein wrote:

Would it serve any useful purpose if a city in which a majority of the 
residents were religious conservatives adopted a resolution condemning 
gay organizations in the city for saying or doing things that they 
construed to be anti-religious.





With tongue firmly planted in cheek, it makes about as much difference 
as Texas resolving to make pi equal to 3.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 6, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Gregory Wallace wrote:

It seems to me that it’s one thing for government to engage in actions 
that
are inconsistent with religious doctrine or practice (i.e., you go 
your way,
we’ll go ours), but it’s quite another for government to explicitly 
denounce
religious doctrine as discriminatory, defamatory, insulting, 
meddlesome,

hateful, callous, insensitive, ignorant, absolutely unacceptable, and
deserving of defiance. At what point does this constitute a government
declaration that religious doctrine is false and untrue, something I 
thought

government is incompetent (and forbidden) to do?

Greg Wallace
Campbell University School of Law


Then why is polygamy against the law?
Why is homosexuality against the law?

The only reasons against those are religious reasons.  There are 
religions that embrace both of those practices.  Further, this is a 
resolution, not a law.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 6, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Ed Brayton wrote:


Jean Dudley wrote:



I think we have an interesting question right here:  Who is allowed 
to find something unacceptable?  The representatives of a 
municipality, I should think, are indeed qualified to state that 
something is unacceptable for that particular municipality.



I think it depends entirely on the content, at least in terms of how 
we would feel. If the representatives of a municipality declared that, 
say, belief in evolution was unacceptable, would they still be 
"qualified" to state that or would they be taking a religious position 
that is disallowed? If they declared that homosexuality is 
unacceptable? If they said that atheism was unacceptable?


Ed Brayton


First off, homosexuality has been codified as illegal in just about 
every state in the US, which is far worse than a simple resolution;  
There is a plan in the works to create a religious community for 
Catholics only--wasn't it the president of Domino's Pizza that was 
going to set it up?  I've forgotten. Didn't Texas make a resolution 
that pi equal 3 a few years back?  A resolution has no legal 
ramifications.  Or am I wrong on that score?


It's up to the people of San Fransisco to let their representatives 
know that the resolution doesn't reflect their views by voting against 
the reps next election.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 6, 2006, at 2:26 AM, Marty Lederman wrote:

"...it's not really for a municipality to say whether a decree to 
Catholic agencies is or is not "acceptable," is it?  (And the fifth 
clause is a bit odd, if not silly, because I assume Cardinal Levada 
does not make any pretense of being a "representative" of San 
Francisco.)

 
Having said all that, I think the most interesting and difficult 
provision in the resolution, certainly from a constitutional 
perspective, is the first part of the final clause, urging local 
Catholics to "defy" the Church's decrees.  I'm sure many people on 
this list will conclude that that is unacceptable, but I'm not so sure


I think we have an interesting question right here:  Who is allowed to 
find something unacceptable?  The representatives of a municipality, I 
should think, are indeed qualified to state that something is 
unacceptable for that particular municipality.


As for those of us on the list who find the call to defy unacceptable, 
well, they're welcome to their opinion.  However, they cannot dictate 
that to the municipality, IMO.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: Residential picketing ordinance and refusal to give a get

[Jean Dudley]

On Mar 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Will Linden wrote:


TAKE THAT WOMAN OUT AND *GAFIATE* HER!


Gods, I love Google:  
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-gaf1.htm


OK, ok, not really on topic, I know.  But *he* (points at Will) started 
it!


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: Residential picketing ordinance and refusal to give a get

[Jean Dudley]

On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:


Hmm.  Did you mean a "git"?  Or an idiot?  Or offspring in general?  :)

Context is all . . .


*blink*

Surely you are kidding.  Even this schiksa knows even a cow is entitled 
to a get if she gets a bum steer.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student
___
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.

Georgia to offer "Biblical History" elective in high schools

[Jean Dudley]

http://www.cbs46.com/Global/story.asp?S=4656993

ATLANTA (AP) -- A bill that allows public high schools to offer classes 
on the Bible sped through the Georgia House today, passing 
overwhelmingly with no debate.


   The legislation, which passed 151-to-7, would allow high schools to 
form elective courses on the history and literature of the Old 
Testament and New Testament eras. The classes would focus on the law, 
morals, values and culture of the eras.


   State Representative James Mills, the proposal's House sponsor, said 
the legislation would withstand a court challenge because it treats the 
Bible as an educational supplement.


   Under the proposal, the Old Testament and New Testament would be the 
primary text for each class and the local school board would decide 
which version of the text to use. Students would also have the option 
to use a different version of the text.


   The proposal, originally introduced by a band of Senate Democrats, 
surprised many by urging that the Bible should be taught as an elective 
in Georgia's public schools.


   Republicans quickly substituted their own version, which specifies 
that the Bible itself would be the course textbook. The measure easily 
passed the G-O-P-controlled Senate last month by a 50-to-1 vote.


--
I have doubts about this.
Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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.

[Jean Dudley]

Agreed, Donald.  I was in the process of googling for the actual 
wording of the resolution when Winston got there first.

On Mar 3, 2006, at 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Not that I agree with the resolution, but it does not say half of the 
things attributed to it in the summary circulated by Jean...we all 
need to be much more precise

 
Donald C. Clark, Jr.
Counselor at Law
Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza I
2333 Waukegan Road
Suite 160
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
(847) 236-0900 (telephone)
(847) 236-0909 
(facsimiles)___

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.

Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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.

[Jean Dudley]

Thank you, Winston.  Once again, the media tends to overdramatize 
issues with incendiary titles/headlines.  I'm not sure that Missouri is 
declaring Xianity a state or official religion, but the wording of this 
resolution surely smells of it.  Besides, it's plainly a way to have 
prayer in public schools and nativity scenes on public property.


It's just a resolution--can future law or jurisprudence be based on it? 
 Are we at the top of a legislative or judicial "slippery slope"?





On Mar 3, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Winston Calvert wrote:


Here is the text of the resolution:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
4572L.02I
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills061/bills/hcr13.htm

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the
United States recognized a Christian God and used the
principles afforded to us by Him as the founding
principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the
majority also wish to exercise our constitutional
right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for
the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the
majority's right to express their religious beliefs
while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in
the Constitution of the United States of America by
the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a
Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions
of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the
House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General
Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate
concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of
our constituents and exercise the common sense that
voluntary prayer in public schools and religious
displays on public property are not a coalition of
church and state, but rather the justified recognition
of the positive role that Christianity has played in
this great nation of ours, the United States of
America.


--- "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Is it that Missouri "declares" Christianity its
official
religion, or just that some legislators have
proposed such a resolution?
(Either are worth condemning, I think, but it's
important to have a
sense of what exactly is happening.)

Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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.

Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.

[Jean Dudley]

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.


Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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: Interesting twist in Florida RFRA case involving the woman who objected to having to be photographed unveiled for her driver's license

[Jean Dudley]

le of
Thomas v. Review Bd.?

I'd love to hear what others think about this -- it seems like
an important conceptual issue.  It may well be that even under a state
RFRA, Freeman should have lost on a compelling interest theory, but the
"no substantial burden" argument seems quite weak.

Eugene
___
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.




Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student

___
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]

On Jan 27, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Will Linden wrote:


At 07:56 PM 1/26/06 -0800, you wrote:

 Being gay is not about sex.  A person can be gay
and celibate (and indeed many are).


 But this assumes the this-year's-politically-correct doctrine that 
every boy and every gel who's born into this world alive is either a 
little homo or a little hetero. I don't buy it (and neither do 
self-identified "bisexuals"), finding it makes more sense to assume 
that pervert is as pervert does. Otherwise we run into problems 
similar to those of "hate crime" laws (note turning back to legal 
issues!) which require one to infer mental states.



I don't buy into the whole nature vs. nurture debate for this one 
reason:  You can be born a Jew, or you can convert to Judaism.  In 
either case, it is in violation of the fundamental rights of each 
citizen to burn a cross on your lawn.  It doesn't matter if you 
converted or if you were born to it.  It's still wrong to beat someone, 
leave them on a fencepost and let them die.


Namaste,
Jean

___
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]

On Jan 26, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:




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,

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.


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.  What I've experienced 
is that name is used when such folks refuse to believe that there is a 
problem, turn a blind eye toward hateful behavior.


I may very well burn in hell for not being heterosexual.  I'll take my 
chances.  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.


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.


Jean Dudley

___
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: "inJohn Roberts' America....."

[Jean Dudley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of 
the United States */_and of the State wherein they reside_/*.  Suppose 
that a young mother of an unborn baby resides in Maryland.  Does the 
interest of Maryland, in the health and safety of its citizens, 
dissipate when temporarily those citizens visit other states?  Why?


I currently reside in the state of California.  As far as I'm concerned, 
my uterus is not Federal land, nor is it State property.  It is roughly 
analogous to private property, and it is my understanding that if an 
intruder in my home is intent on doing me bodily harm, I have the right 
to self-defense, even if it means killing the intruder.  Likewise, I 
have control over my uterus, in that I have the right to terminate an 
unwanted pregnancy. 

Keep you laws off my body.  Your religious views are not the same as 
mine, and you have no right to impose them on me against my will.  I am 
more important than the contents of my womb, and FYI, it is not a child, 
it is a fetus. 
Jean Dudley.

___
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: Civility versus Respect

[Jean Dudley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Respect is a thing earned, not donated. 


I respectfully disagree, Jim.  I was raised to show a set amount of 
respect to everyone.  That level of repsect is subject to change 
depending on the recipient's behavior.  And regardless of how low a 
person sinks, I will never follow them down to that level by actively 
showing disrespect for their humanity. 

That way lies the Shoa and genocide. 

Nearer to, there lies rudeness and incivility.  In between are abuse and 
discrimination. 

We all live in this society and the constant rubbing of human beings in 
the brownian motion of life demands the lubricant of good manners, 
civility, and respect.  Without it, all our lives would be the worse. 

Kindly show me the respect of refering to my party as the Democratic 
party.  I'll return the favor by addressing you by the nomenclature you 
request. 


Sincerely,
Jean Dudley
___
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: George Washington adding "under God" to the Presidential oath

[Jean Dudley]

Scarberry, Mark wrote:

  Thus the Democratic Party seems to want special
treatment, claiming the right to have its members known as Democrats rather
than Democratics. :-)

That's 'cause we're special*.  *Noddle*

Jean
*For an unspecified value of "special"


___
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: George Washington adding "under God" to the Presidential oath

[Jean Dudley]

What about the Pale Mint folk?

Samuel V wrote:


And to the Libertars and Socials as well.

On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member
of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic
Party!

Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan
   



___
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: George Washington adding "under God" to the Presidential oath

[Jean Dudley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party.  Some of you
may dislike it.  
  
If I had my voter registration card with me here, I could see just what
it says I am.  Since I don't, I'll have to go on memory alone.  I'm
pretty sure I'm a registered member of the Democrat*ic*
Party.  That would make me a Democrat, (an individual member of the
Democratic Party) wouldn't it?  

Obviously you aren't talking about my political affiliation, and so no
skin off my nose if
you wish to refer to a non-existant party. Knock yourself out, J. 

Jean Dudley
Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite.



___
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: George Washington adding "under God" to the Presidential oath

[Jean Dudley]

Volokh, Eugene wrote:


I've heard various people mention that George Washington added
"so help me God" to the constitutionally prescribed, which is "I do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Some use it as evidence for the propriety of religious references in
government affairs; others stress that "so help me God" isn't actually a
part of the official oath, and the frequent inclusion of "so help me
God" is the Presidents' own detour and frolic.

Here's my question:  In the late 1700s, did people who said
oaths (as opposed to affirmations) routinely include "so help me God" or
some such, simply because that was seen as a natural part of oaths?  If
so, then it might be that the Framers naturally expected that those who
see an oath as a religiously significant matter would include "so help
me God."

Eugene
___
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.

 

Speaking solely as someone who's studied (albeit informally) Elizabethan 
dialect, I can say that oaths invoking the name of G-d (for our Jewish 
friends) were extremely common, as well as the name of Mary and various 
saints.  So common, in fact, that the so-called "Pilgrims" were often 
offended as they say it as taking the name of the Lord in vain. 

Swearing on the blood of Christ gave us the common English oath "bloody". 

Read Shakespeare.  "Marry" was a variation on Mary.  This was before the 
standardization of spelling. 

While I am no expert, it makes sense that oaths given for public office 
were viewed as having religious significance by individuals.  Hence the 
addition of "So help me God". 

I'd lean toward the explaination that such oaths were individual 
peccadillos, and not something required by the office. 


Jean Dudley
Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite Valley
___
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: Locke v. Davey follow-up

[Jean Dudley]

Lupu wrote:
Such singling out would violate the constitution in a 
number of ways, including infringement of right to acquire 
information as well as free exercise of religion (and perhaps right to 
direct education of children, if the ban included children as well).

Perhaps I'm putting my ignorance on display, but I wasn't aware that 
there was a constitutional right to the aquisition of information.  Can 
you give me more info?

Jean Dudley
___
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: Locke v. Davey follow-up

[Jean Dudley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/3/2005 8:02:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I take it there was an unofficial list of prohibited
items?  Some things spring immediately to mind;  illicit drugs,
alcohol,
porn, gambling?  This makes a certain amount of sense.
Well, it was slightly, but only slightly, more complicated.  
First, the amount of AFDC was so inadequate that women (the client was 
almost always a single woman and not a single man or a family) had to 
struggle to use the meager funds for rent and food. Second, if the 
meager amount was spent and the client still had a rent or food 
problem, this would alert the worker to the possibility of misspent 
funds. Thus, exigencies of survival were typically the informal 
enforcement mechanism.

As a case worker, I assume it was your duty to "take care" of the 
clients, wasn't it?  I can imagine that there were limits to the amount 
and type of intervention you could enact.  Can you elaborate? 

I realize this is getting off-topic, and have no problem moving this 
off-list. 

Sincerely,
Jean Dudley.
___
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: Locke v. Davey follow-up

[Jean Dudley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For whatever relevance it might have, and irrespective of the 
NY AFDC statutes, as a former welfare worker for the NYC welfare 
department, I can say that the clear understanding between workers and 
clients was that the use of the money is limited.  But there was no 
formal mechanism of enforcing this understanding. In my experience, 
any "enforcement" depended on the relationship between the worker and 
his or her client.
 
Bobby
Interesting.  I take it there was an unofficial list of prohibited 
items?  Some things spring immediately to mind;  illicit drugs, alcohol, 
porn, gambling?  This makes a certain amount of sense. 

In Washington state many years ago, a welfare mother received a scratch 
ticket as a gift.  It paid off less than a $1K, if I recall.  The funds 
were deducted from her next welfare check. 

She planned on using the funds to buy clothes and shoes for her kids. 

Talk about the state making it hard to get off welfare.
Jean Dudley.
___
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: Locke v. Davey follow-up

[Jean Dudley]

Paul Finkelman wrote:
The question might be how statutes are written.  If the statutes limit 
use of money for certain things, then use of the money might be 
prohibited for *all* other things, not just religious ecucation; that 
would then be a law of general applicability. 
Well, I plead ignorance of the laws regarding the use of welfare funds.  
However, I do know that food stamps have very specific uses and limits.  
Among the prohibited items are tobacco and alcohol, if I remember 
correctly.  I'm not so sure that welfare funds are limited in such a 
manner.  When I was growing up in California, there was the usual 
backlash against misuse of welfare funds typical in conservative 
communities.  Accusations of buying big fancy cars and such--never mind 
that often these are the only cars that dealers would finance for those 
on welfare, especially used car sellers.  High rate of repossession, and 
the dealer essentialy gets his investment back.  Then he can sell that 
Oldsmobile to another welfare family, and make a bit more money on it. 

I'm not in a position to check the statutes.  I'm going to be on limited 
internet access for the summer--I've got a summer job in Yosemite, and 
online time will be devoted more to uploading pictures and keeping in 
touch with friends and family rather than law research. 

So I'd say with the proviso that if welfare funds are not limited in 
use, it is a matter of personal choice and the right of free expression 
of religion as to how it is spent.  And frankly, I'd much rather the 
money be spent on church donations/dues than on gas-guzzling aging 
behemoths and bottles of cheap vodka or whiskey.  Ultimately, it's not 
my judegment to make.  And I don't think it should be anyone else's 
decision.  Some folks have to make their own mistakes.  And when they 
do, we need social services to provide a safety net. 

Jean Dudley. 
___
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: Locke v. Davey follow-up

[Jean Dudley]

Paul Finkelman wrote:
are welfare payments tied to expected budget expenses -- food, 
housing, clothing, transportatoin, medical care, etc?  Most welfare is 
AFDC, and is earmarked for helping children.  If mother uses money for 
food and housing to pay the church, is that welfare fraud?

Paul Finkelman 
I'd argue that although (some?) welfare funds are ostensibly for the 
child's welfare, it's up to the legal guardian/parent/s to decide what 
that welfare entails.  If they opt to pay membership dues to a church, 
temple or coven, that is their decision.  If the child is hungry, sick 
and in worn-out clothes as a result, that's a matter for child welfare 
services. 

Jean Dudley
___
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.

OFF Topic request: My apologies in advance

[Jean Dudley]

Paging Mr. Finkelman!
Would you kindly email me off list?  I've neglected to transfer my 
address book to my laptop!

Sincerely,
Jean Dudley
___
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.

OT: Pagan vs. "pagan"

[Jean Dudley]

With all due respect, Mr. Linden, Christian is a "generic description", 
as well, but because it is a generic description of a collection of 
specific (and non-related) religions, it is given the initial 
capitalization.  Your argument doesn't hold water.  Further, "Xtian" 
(alternatively "Xian") is a sobriquet used by early Christians 
themselves, and is still being used as a respectful shorthand by 
English-speaking Christian scholars the world over.  As for those that 
use the uncapitalized "judeo-christian", I'd say they are lacking in 
knowledge of the use of capitalization, or are just plain ornery.

Yes, Pagan (then "pagan") was used pejoratively.  It also meant 
prostitute.  Originally it meant "country dweller", with the 
implication that these were the last outposts of indigenous religions 
before pre-Christian Rome converted them to the religion of 
Emperor-as-deity.  The general connotation was "back-woods hick", I 
believe.  Now the word encompasses all of the reconstructed and 
surviving indigenous religions.  Including, I presume, the ones you 
mentioned. And as such, it deserves capitalization.

It's good to know the historic uses of a word, the various flavors it 
carried.  It also helps to recognize new uses, and maintain the 
standards of correct English usage.

As for sociological atlases, I'd disagree.  There are lots of places 
that Rome never conquered.  Me, for example.  *wry smile* How ironic 
that the very term they used so pejoratively against others is now used 
to describe them.  Ever hear one of Garrison Keillor's "Lake Wobegone" 
series, where the Lutherans denounce the Catholics as idolatrous 
pagans?

Yes, we're straying from the topic of religion and law, here.  I'd be 
happy to continue this discussion off-list, Mr. Linden, before Eugene 
calls for our hanging and the burning of our corpses in the town 
square.  *wink*

On Apr 18, 2005, at 9:59 PM, Will Linden wrote:
At 09:25 AM 4/15/05 -0400, you wrote:
However, Wicca is a dogma-free religion.  "An it harm none, do what 
thou will" is one of the major beliefs.  I suspect it's ignorance on 
the part of the article's author--also you will note that "neo-pagan" 
is used instead of Neo-Pagan.  This is a common mistake, but the OED 
and all American Dictionaries  stipulate that proper names of 
religions and religious groups are capitalized.


 Strongly disagree. "Neo-pagan" is a generic description. Are "Wiccan 
revivalists", neo-Hellenists like T. Taylor, Botkin's Church of 
Aphrodite, Norse revivalists, Slavic revivalists, and the group 
Chesterton found "carrying on the pious work of our ancestor King 
Penda" all a specific religion of "Paganism"?
   (And for most of its linguistic history, pejorative at that. That 
is why a sociological atlas will tell you that there are no more 
"pagans", only "animists".)

 You don't see "judeo-christian", do you?
 Frequently, from the same sort of people who think they are scoring a 
tremendous point by writing "Xtian".
thers.
Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student
___
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.