Re: American Courts Asked to Interpet Muslim Marriage contract
You would probably find analogous cases regarding courts' ability to apply the requirements of Jewish law to get a Ghet or Get, a Jewish divorce. The first spelling would obviously be more westlawable or lexisable. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 2/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a student who is doing a moot court project on whether state courts can settle a dispute over the meaning of an Islamic marriage contract. The parties are resident aliens and the question is whether the courts can interpret the relevant provisions of the religious marriage contract without violating the Establishment Clause. I''m sure this issue has arisen in the domestic context of mainstream American religions, but I am not familiar with the caselaw in this area. Whatever the answer to the domestic question is, does the fact that the parties are resident aliens affect the answer. Off-List replies are fine, and I'll assume they can be shared with other List members. If you do not want me to share off-List responses please let me know. Thanks in advance. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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: Swedish Pastor Beats Hate Crime Rap
On 12/1/05, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Newsom Michael wrote: Maybe the answer lies in a different understanding of homosexuality, and perhaps a different set of experiences. I do recall, by the way, that the Nazis killed homosexuals (the pink triangle). Indeed they did, and they were wrong to do so. They also would have been wrong to kill people who advocated against homosexuality. They also would have been wrong to lock them up or fine them. I disagree with Professor Newsom as to who the bully is. The bully is not the Pastor preaching his faith, with only the force of his own power of persuasion. The bully is the person who would use the coercive power of the State to settle the argument by making the advocacy on the other side illegal. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado ___ 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: 500 years
I've been hesitant to jump in as this seems to drift a bit off topic, but given the invitation I'll add my perspective. I am a Catholic, and was educated in Catholic schools and have represented Catholic organizations for many years. But, I married a protestant and go to Sunday services and Bible studies, etc., at an evangelical protestant church. So I have some perspective on what goes on in both worlds. I do agree with Professor Newsom that there remains a great deal of lingering disdain among evangelical protestants for Catholics. For example, they do still deem it important to covert Catholics, and the missionaries who come to our church talk about converting Catholics the same way they talk about converting Hindus or Muslims. This annoys me somewhat, but I recognize their right to say what they want and convert who they want. They also have serious doctrinal problems with Catholic theology, mostly centering around their perceptions (incorrect in my view) that (1) the Catholic church deems the approval and involvement of priests to be essential to salvation, as opposed to a more direct relationship with God, and (2) that Catholics believe salvation comes through works rather than faith. If you took a vote you'd probably get a 50/50 result as to whether they think Catholics are saved, with most of the nays coming from the older generation. I was considered someone they wanted as an elder in the church, until I told them I was Catholic, and then that went out the window. On the other hand, I don't agree with Professor Newsom that Catholics feel so threatened by Protestants that they wish to see government prohibit religious messages in the public square. As Professor Volokh has suggested, I believe that Catholics would like to see government become more friendly to religion in general. I also disagree with Professor Newsom in his view that Catholicism is not evangelical. Catholics are, in fact, trying to convert people every day. Preferably to Catholicism, but at least to Christianity. They are less likely to take a direct approach of the type that some evangelicals take, generally preferring to show Christ by example, but they certainly are not opposed to direct approaches. I also think Catholics are less likely to believe that non-Christians are necessarily condemned to damnation. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 11/7/05, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since this is relevant to the question of whether Protestants are so unusual in proselytizing, I thought I'd take the liberty of asking a theological question: Don't Catholics hope that more non-Catholics become Catholics, and in fact take active steps to do so? If so, then I don't see why Catholics should simply want Catholicism to be left alone; nor should they see proselytizing as a dirty word. (Prof. Newsom is free to simply want Catholicism to be left alone, but I'm just trying to explore whether it's somehow an essentially Catholic view.) Finally, I don't think there's anything offensive in pointing out that Prof. Newsom's arguments, both on the list and in his writings, seem to contain a certain degree of hostility to Protestantism, and a greater degree than seems to be generally expressed by at least the American Catholic church. Perhaps it's justified hostility; he is certainly free to express his views about what he sees as the legacy of some Protestant Empire, for instance. But others are free to suggest (whether or not Doug Laycock meant to suggest it) that Prof. Newsom's views urge a greater degree of suspicion of Protestantism than many Catholics exhibit, and urge a greater degree of tension and a lesser degree of cooperation between the faiths than many Catholics urge. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: 500 years Doug, could you refer to the documents of the Second Vatican Council that say that the Church should support facilitation of the teaching or presentation in the public schools of doctrine antithetical to the Catholic faith on the grounds that teaching any religion is better than teaching no religion? Doug, with respect, you beg the question. The question is whether or not agreement on social and moral issues can coexist in some sort of long term and stable relationship with disagreement on theological issues. Maybe yes, maybe no (although I lean to the no side). Furthermore, the conflict arising out of the Reformation regarding the church-sacrament system has not pretty much burned itself out. As I have said in an earlier post, take a look at the responses to Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry, and tell me if you still believe that the conflict has pretty much burned itself out. Finally, it is offensive to insinuate that that I am trying
Re: what does the right REALLY think of Roberts?
On 7/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How in the world can a libertarian be a social conservative? Actually, a libertarian view would be very consistent with social conservativism. On what issues do you think they are inconsistent? On homosexuality, most social conservatives do not favor laws prohibiting sodomy, but they do resist employment and housing laws which require them to accept the lifestyle. On gay marriage, a libertarian view would be that the state should not bless and recognize any marriages at all, that this should be simply a private matter. On education, they favor eirther getting the government out of the field altogether, or at least privitizing it so that the government is only the single payer. Abortion is a special case, in that it depends on whether one is willing to recognize the fetus as having the same rights of someone outside the womb - and one's position on that issue is not governed by how libertarian one is; even the most radical libertarians support laws against murder. Certainly, there are some social conservative views held by some that are not libertarian (government sponsorship of specific religions, no flag burning) but not all social conservatives support those policies, and there is nothing inconsistent about the social conservatism of a libertarian. Similarly, how can a libertarian fault rights because they are allegedly invented by courts? Should any self-respecting libertarian reject rights only if they are not part of natural law or whatever he or she deems the correct political theory of rights? And isn't the role of the courts in determining the correct set of rights completely irrelevant to rights embraced by libertarian theory? In other words, one would think that a libertarian--even a constitutional libertarian--wouldn't care a bit about whether courts invented rights just so long as normative political theory embraces those rights? Anybody, not just a libertarian, can contend that the government should support certain liberties, but admit that these liberties are not necessarily protected by the Constitution. So, such a person (if he or she is a strict constructionist) would support Constitutiional decisions which protect rights actually located in the Constitution, and support legislation to protect other liberties. Just because one is a libertarian does not mean that he or she would support stretching the Constitution to support his own agenda (especially when he or she knows that such stretching historicly has been used to promote other agendas). Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado ___ 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: what does the right REALLY think of Roberts?
In deference to the repeated requests of our moderator, I'll let Professor Lipkin have the last word. I guess I'll just have to run the continued risk that, in my future secret meetings with either the social conservatives or the small l libertarians, I might get thrown out of there. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 7/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:44:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My sense is that most of the opposition to overruling Bowers was based on a perception that the Court was acting lawlessly (a peception I don't necessarily share), and a concern that the precedent of the case would require legalization of gay marriage and impose sexual-orientation-based civil rights laws, rather than a desire to see anti-sodomy laws passed or enforced. I wasn't referring to Lawrence, but rather support of Bowers when and immediately after it was decidedly well before same-sex marriage became an issue. Social conservatives embraced the decision as defending the majority in enforcing its morality. This argument had nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage. Judging the majority entitled to enforce their morality is decidedly unlibertarian position. Libertarians have rather sharply circumscribed use for majorities. Also, the contention So long as the government is in the business of deciding which unions to recognize as marriages, the people should be allowed to decide whether those should include same-sex marriages, plural marriages, sibling marriages, etc. is cannot be confused with libertarianism. Libertarianism has no special appreciation for the people as having any special rights to decide issues not bearing upon defense, crimes, contract, etc. Mr. Ventola might think eclectic blendings of social conservatism and majoritarianism are useful. But they are antithetical to libertarianism as a distinct, coherent, political theory. Why couple libertarianism with its antithesis in contemporary discussions of religion and politics? Why not instead simply state one's social conservatism and majoritarianism and leave it at that? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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: what does the right REALLY think of Roberts?
Well necessary criteria would be that the decision (1) is based on the language of the Constitution itself, and the original meaning of those words, (2) does not rely on some extra-Constitutional basis, such as modern social policy or foreign law, unless that policy or law is incorporated by the Constitution, (3) is consistent, in that if it treats cases differently, it does so in a way rooted in the Constitution itself. I personally think you could have decisions which are principled according to these criteria coming down either way on the religion clauses. When I think of decisions based on judicial fiat, I tend to think more of other decisions. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 7/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/25/2005 4:37:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Since this is a religion list, what exactly does it mean to enforce the Constitution as written when it comes to the religion clauses?) A distinct but equally important question is this. Suppose we know what it means to enforce the Constitution as written, rather than impose some other world view through judicial fiat just how do we know when a judicial decision succeeds in achieving this? What features of the opinion or reasoning will be dispositive? Further, even if we were all committed to this imperative regarding the religion clauses, is there any reasonable chance that this will help us achieve consensus over their meaning? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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: inJohn Roberts' America.....
With our moderator gone, I'll go ahead and be the one to suggest this. We've had the salvos and counter-salvo on this issue now. It's really outside the scope of this list. Can we end it here, or take further discussion off list? Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 7/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/23/2005 2:35:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So long as Casey remains on the books, even if it is narrowed, it would, presumably, make impossible the kind of totalitarian system that Jean Dudley may rightly fear. Totalitarian system. Hysteria substituting for thought. Is it totalitarian to tell the white man that he may not, with impugnity lynch the black, steal the land of the red, and drive the yellow man out of his economic community? Is it totalitarian to tell men's business groups that they harm others by excluding them? Is it totalitarian to prohibit theft? Murder? Spitting on the sidewalk? Jean can and should do with her body whatever she likes, but she ought to be prevented from taking the life of a child even if, by the acts of others, it finds itself in so hostile a land. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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: Assaults on the England language
Judeo-Christian does not (usually) refer to a person. It refers to a common tradition. It is undeniable that they have much of their tradition and morality in common. There is a REALLY thick book of ancient writings that both ascribe to as history and as moral teaching (though Christians would say there have been some updates). It would be silly to deny that there is this commonality of tradition. You could refer in the same way, I suppose, to the Judeo-Christian-Mormon tradition, since Mormons accept the holy scriptures of Jews and Christians, and add more. Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition would also have some meaning, but would be more of a stretch, even though the Muslim tradition arguably arises out of Judaism and Christianity, because they don't accept the same scriptures. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 7/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A wording which I find less acceptable is Judeo-Christian. There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. This, of course, is a doctrinal formulation, calling for adoption or rejection. It recalls a battle line that brewed below the surface, and then boiled over, in the Petrine-Pauline disputes. Nonetheless, having represented Jews for Jesus, and having been told by those that I represented that they were Jews who believed in Jesus, I have my doubts that your categorical fiat must be right. On the other hand, if the Israeli Supreme Court and the law of return are the definitional gold standard for who is a Jew, then Jews who believe Jesus is the promised Messiah are not Jews. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
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: Purim and Child Abuse
Just to clear the record, I didn't say that, either. In fact, I specifically said that I thought you could probably find non-mainstream sects that advocate drinking heavily. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark-- I was not talking about Purim, but rather responding to Sam Ventola's comment that it was unlikely that there were religious ceremonies involving drunkenness. There are plenty, but I was not referring to Jews in any way. Marci ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Compulsory Religious Attendance in the Military
I never attended OCS, but that sounds wrong and unreliable to me. The military has never required attendance at religious services, at least since my service in the 80's. If such a policy existed, I'm sure the ACLU or Americans United would be on to it by now. As a practical matter, attendence can often be encouraged, by assigning some detail, i.e. duty, to persons who don't go to religious services. In reality, this is more out of a desire to keep people from hanging around the barracks when there is nothing on the training schedule than it is out of a desire to force religion on people. Samuel Ventola Denver, Colorado On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:29:57 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a student who has informed me that attendance at religious services were compulsory in officer candidates school. What mechanism (statute, constitutional provision, etc.) authorizes this? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
