Re: Jesus for President?
Jesus for President? Why would He allow Himself to be demoted? He's already King of kings, Lord of lords and has ALL power in Heaven and on earth. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican... Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 18 May 2007 7:47 AM Subject: Re: Jesus for President? Clearly he neither sees a violationa, nor believes that there should be a separation. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/07 4:10 AM Surely you should be allowed to say any prayer you want, in private. To give a Christian prayer in church is no problem for me, and if you pray to Jesus in a military service for Christians, fine. To pray to Jesus in a general military service is improper, and I see problems with any law which expressly allows you to do that. I respect your feeling deeply about what you see as an important issue. Allow me to feel equally deeply about your imposing a Christian prayer on non-Christians. You don't see a violation of the separation of church and state here? Susan Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Since Eugene gave us the green light to talk politics Below is my op-ed for today's Worldnet Daily, explaining the likely views of four Presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Brownback, Hunter) on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus name. Jesus for President? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55725 Enjoy! Chaplain Klingenschmitt WND Exclusive Commentary Jesus for president? Posted: May 17, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Gordon James Klingenschmitt OK, I admit, Jesus Christ is not running for president this year. He promised to return soon enough, to assume public office, but meanwhile, where do the 2008 presidential candidates stand on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus' name? I'm not naming names, but let's start with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the Navy punished me, a chaplain, for quoting the Bible in the chapel during optionally attended Christian worship, I faxed a formal whistleblower complaint to my New York senator, asking for help. Did she protect her evangelical chaplain? No. I called her office nearly every day, but nobody returned my phone calls for weeks, until finally, I voice-mailed her press secretary about my interview with Jewish Week newspaper http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/JewishWeekStewartAin3Jun05.pdf, telling how I was punished for requesting Kosher meals for my Jewish sailor. Shall I tell them Senator Clinton doesn't care about Jewish service members? I asked. Fearing bad press, Clinton signed a letter of inquiry to the Navy http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/Senators.pdf for me that same day. But later, after Navy officials justified to her how I was also properly punished for praying in Jesus' name and how chaplains really should pray non-sectarian prayers in public, my sources witnessed Sen. Clinton taking bold action /against me/. Opposing a House bill to let chaplains pray according to their faith http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy6/WarnerSpeech2.pdf, Clinton personally attended meetings to block our legislation, preferring to let the Pentagon censor our prayers. Sen. Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't any better. While campaigning in Iowa last month, Obama was asked his opinion about Judge Roy Moore, who couldn't display the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, and about me, a chaplain who was discharged for praying in uniform. First, Sen. Obama falsely claimed he wasn't aware of the chaplain situation, when I'd personally faxed my whistleblower complaints to his office http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy10/ChapsToObama.pdf, and his staff acknowledged placing them on his desk. Even worse, Obama disrespected the Ten Commandments, claiming, If you are not a believer, there would be a feeling that you wouldn't be treated as fairly as a Christian. We want everybody to feel they are treated equally. http://thechurchreport.com/news_article.php?day=16mon=04yr=2007 Apparently, Obama believes God's Ten Commandments are unfair since they might hurt people's feelings (as if his pro-abortion laws don't hurt the feelings of the unborn). Would President Obama appoint judges who oppose Roy Moore and would jackhammer the 44
Lofton / Law-Religion
All law is inescapably religious, our own Western law being based on the Christian Church/Bible. See, please, among other books, Harold Berman's 2-vol work Law And Revolution. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 17 May 2007 1:32 PM Subject: RE: Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been I wish that it were clear that there is a sharp line dividing the two. There is, after all, a powerful dynamic relation between law and morality, as there is between law and psychology, law and theology, and any number of other relevant and germane factors and considerations. Falwell obviously sought to link law and morality. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:40 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been A discussion of Falwell's role in the development of Religion Clauses law is surely entirely on-topic. A discussion of whether Falwell acted in sad or sinful ways under one's own theological view (however sincere or well-reasoned) of what behavior is sad or sinful strikes me as no more on-topic than a discussion of whether, say, Justices Brennan or Blackmun acted in sad or sinful ways. Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/17/07 9:01 AM In a message dated 5/16/2007 9:59:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please remember that this is a list devoted to the law of government and religion -- not on whether some people (recently dead or otherwise) acted in sad or sinful ways, except insofar as that pretty closely connects to the law of government and religion. I am incredulous that an open discussion of one of the most important operatives in religion and constitutionalism in the last three decades should be inappropriate on this List. Of course, this is Eugene's List and therefore I will respect his wishes. But I could not disagree more with his sense of relevance or appropriateness in this matter. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris , Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) Essentially Contested America, Editor: _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ___ 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. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ___ 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.
Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been
The sad thing about Jerry Falwell is not that he never did anything good (which is to say Godly). The sad and sinful thing about him is that, publically, instead of preaching God's Word to public officials (elected and running for office) and telling them what God required of them, he was a Republican Party cheerleader, a dumb dog that was not barking (Isaiah 56:10), a eunuch in the palace of the king of Babylon (II Kings 20:18). John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican. Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 3:19 PM Subject: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think Shortly after Lee vs. Weisman, Jerry Falwell, two separationists, and I were invited to participate in a debate that was a feature of the annual convention of the Virginia Bar Association. In addition to the opportunity to enjoy a visit to Williamsburg, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet Falwell. To facilitate the debate, the VBA arranged for a private luncheon between the four of us. And in that luncheon I got an insight into Falwell that has served as a balance to all the rancor that has been thrown toward him as a consequence of his very public stances. It seems that, as a drove to Thomas Road one day, he noticed a sign being erected in front of a small home. The sign proclaimed the opening of a Palmistry shop. Folks who think they know Falwell from his public stances, me included, may think that he would have sprung into action by organizing public protests, etc. He didn't. When he got to work, he called for the junior-most pastor on the staff at Thomas Road. When the young associate appeared, Falwell slipped him twenty dollars and instructed him to go get his palm read, meet the owner and develop a relationship. Ultimately, the woman, through that friendship, came to faith in Christ, closed her shop, and pursued further education . . . ultimately becoming a licensed counselor . . . something that she had obviously had a penchant for previously. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ See what's free at AOL.com. ___ 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. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ___ 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
Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 3:19 PM Subject: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think Shortly after Lee vs. Weisman, Jerry Falwell, two separationists, and I were invited to participate in a debate that was a feature of the annual convention of the Virginia Bar Association. In addition to the opportunity to enjoy a visit to Williamsburg, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet Falwell. To facilitate the debate, the VBA arranged for a private luncheon between the four of us. And in that luncheon I got an insight into Falwell that has served as a balance to all the rancor that has been thrown toward him as a consequence of his very public stances. It seems that, as a drove to Thomas Road one day, he noticed a sign being erected in front of a small home. The sign proclaimed the opening of a Palmistry shop. Folks who think they know Falwell from his public stances, me included, may think that he would have sprung into action by organizing public protests, etc. He didn't. When he got to work, he called for the junior-most pastor on the staff at Thomas Road. When the young associate appeared, Falwell slipped him twenty dollars and instructed him to go get his palm read, meet the owner and develop a relationship. Ultimately, the woman, through that friendship, came to faith in Christ, closed her shop, and pursued further education . . . ultimately becoming a licensed counselor . . . something that she had obviously had a penchant for previously. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ See what's free at AOL.com. ___ 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. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ___ 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.
Lofton/Law/Religion/Theology
We will, of course, abide by the list rules. But it is interesting that ALL law is religious/theological, including Western law as Prof. Harold Berman has made clear in two books on law and revolution where he roots Western law in the Bible. Thus, there is no such thing as secular law. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican... -- Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. ___ 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...
Quote Scripture, please, Mr. Finkelman, where God Himself ever APPROVED of polygamy. I don't think you can. Thank you, sir. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican... -- Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. ___ 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...
Not talking abt wht people in Bible DID. Asked for Scripture showing where God APPROVES of polygamy. Stick to the context here, please. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican... -- Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. ___ 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.
Lofton/God/polygamy
Bobby asks some good questions. But before I respond, let me, please, refresh our memories as to exactly what the context of our discussion here is. The context here is what Mr. Finkelman said which is: Biblical law of course allows polygamy. If it was good enough to the Biblical patriarch and King Solomon, why isn't good enough for people today? COMMENT: I believe Mr. F's obvious assumption that Biblical law of course allows polygamy because people in the Bible did it and that's good enough for us today is a poor hermeneutic that is very dangerous. OK, now to what Bobby writes, please. Bobby: How much weight does the absence of such a quote have in a discussion of what God does or does not approve of? COMMENT: Didn't say there was no such quote -- though I doubt there is one showing that God APPROVES polygamy. I merely asked Mr. F for Scripture to support what he said since he was talking about God's Law. I would strongly advise that whenever you're talking about what you think God's Law explicitly or implictly allows, and by this word allow you're leaving the impression that God APPROVES of that which He allows, yes, indeed, I think what you're saying must be on a solid Scriptural basis. We should not talk loosely about God and what we believe He says, thinks, approves or allows. Be very careful here. Bobby: What counts as God approving of a practice? COMMENT: If you say God approves of a practice, I'd say the burden of proof is on YOU. Tell me what makes you think what you think. Show me the basis for your thinking in the Bible. Bobby: Must the Bible explicitly say that God approves of a particular practice to infer that He approves of it? Must He specifically state his disapproval? COMMENT: No, I'd say certain things can be known by a reasonable inference from Biblical passages. Bobby: Does God ever reproach Abraham for his marriage practices? Aren't there many practices described in the Bible of which God approves--common practices--despite God never explicitly stating is approval? COMMENT: By reasonable inference, as one of my Bible dictionaries says, Scripture presents monogamy as the divine ideal. The Creator made marriage as a union between one man and one woman Gen. 2:18-24; Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 6:16. Apparently polygamy, like divorce, was tolerated because of the hardness of peoples' hearts Matt. 19:8. After the time of Moses, polygamy continued to be practiced, especially by wealthy individuals, such as Gideon, Elkanah, Saul, and David 1 Sam. 1:2; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kin. 11:3. But the most famous polygamist in the Bible was King Solomon: And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart 1 Kin. 11:3. The criticism of polygamy expressed in Deuteronomy 17:17, therefore, is not surprising: the ideal king to whom Israel's obedience can be rightly given shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican... P.S. This Saturday (September 2), from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time), our “The American View” radio show will be on “The Faith Freedom Network.” You can hear our program this coming Saturday by going to this Network’s Web site www.faithandfreedomnetwork.com and clicking on “Listen Now” at the top of the page. The programs you will hear this coming Saturday are, in this order: (1) A new program where Michael Anthony Peroutka (Constitution Party Presidential candidate in 2004)and I introduce ourselves with some biographical information; and we examine in detail what exactly THE American View was and still is -- a distinct view based on Biblical Christianity; (2) Our interview with Terri Schiavo’s lawyer David Gibbs who has written a new book about her murder (this is the same Program 73 which is on our Web site); and (3) An older “TAV” show in which Islam expert Robert Spencer tells the truth about Islam and we wonder why President Bush has said, repeatedly, that this faith is a religion of “peace.” -- Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. ___ 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.
New Christian Web Site
TheAmericanView.com ___ 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 Christian Web Site
Last August, actually, I think. -- ___ 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.
Alito/The Constitution
Anyone disturbed that Judge Alito has said: I don't agree with the theory that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis? Sounds like he's broken his Supreme Court Justice oath before he's taken it. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: From the list custodian RE: Alito/The Constitution
Noted -- though I thought Sup Ct, oath, judges might be in the area of law of government and religion. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com. ___ 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.
Prof. Levinson/Lofton/Alito/Oaths
Interesting, very discerning mention by Prof. Levinson of Alito, the possibility he is an institutional catholic inasmuch as he ultimately gives more weight to what the magesterium (i.e., prior Supreme Courts) have said than to the original gospel (i.e., the written Constitution) might best be interpreted to mean? This reminded me of a brief conversation I had in the Star Chamber (11/12/03) with persecuter Alabama Atty. Gen. William Pryor (also a Catholic) during a break from his badgering of Roy Moore abt whether, if re-instated, he (Moore) would (gasp!) continue to acknowledge God. Chatting casually with Pryor, I told him I was not sure what the problem would be if all judges were like Moore: Biblically-literate, taking God’s Word seriously, judging man’s law by God’s Law. (Pryor and others had talked abt the terrible example Moore had set and the horrors tht would occur if all judges behaved as he did.) Pryor then says to me, who he does not know, that we’d probably disagree on something very important. He says: “I think the Reformation was not a good thing.” I say something like, well, in many ways, in America, we’re all Protestants now, aren't we? He says: But not our courts. They are Catholic” and the Supreme Court is the magisterium. Interesting. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com, neo-Puritan, Calvinist, Postmillennial, Reformed Protestant, recovering Republican. ___ 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.
Lofton/Re: Dover Case Questions
Bobby writes: I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of disease, war, violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features (knees, elbows, eyes) to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect (loving) deity exists is a perfectly legitimate inference. That is, the facts of evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of such a deity, and this incompatibility must be explained away for anyone to recognize these facts but still insist on the deity's existence. I have never been persuaded by any of the numerous attempts to rationalize this incompatibility. But we've been down this road, and I'll say no more about it. Comment: Bobby's view is caused by a lack of faith, not believing the Bible, God's Word, which tells us that, ORIGINALLY, everything made by God was very good. Then, the Fall, Adam/Eve/Serpent -- humans, substituting their own thoughts for God's commands, and, presto!, ALL things are changed by this original sin; lots of bad things happen. God did not make THIS world; WE did. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com, Recovering Republican, saved sinner ___ 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.
Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
I wonder if Mr. Darby's effort is not redundant. Do we not already have the ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national government which are, de facto, operating atheists? Just wondering...John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com and Recovering Republican...Also, an interviewer of Mr. Darby re: the Roy Moore case, the audio of which may soon be posted on our page... ___ 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: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
By saying, carefully, that the ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national government are “de facto, operating” atheists I sought to head off the type of response below. Oh, well….So, please, let me, briefly, elaborate on what I meant by interspersing my comments among the comments of Ed Brayton. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com. Mr. Brayton: I cannot let this go by without comment. I simply know too many members of the ACLU and the ABA who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or another faith to buy the argument that these are de facto atheist organizations. Comment: Saying someone is a “de facto, operating” atheist means, of course, that it doesn’t matter what this individual says he is. What matters is how this person, in fact, operates. For example, most public school teachers are, personally, probably some kind of Christian. But, this does not mean the public schools are Christian. They are de facto, operationally, atheist. In addition, according to my faith, Biblical Christianity, Old and New Testaments, Jesus says it is by one’s fruits, actions, that one is known, not by what one simply says. Mr. Brayton: Taking a strong policy on separation of church and state, as the ACLU does (sometimes too strong, in my view, but that's another matter), does not require that one be an atheist. Comment: True. But, as the old joke goes, paraphrased for this context: You don’t have to be an atheist to believe what the ACLU believes re: church-state, but it helps. Mr. Brayton: There is no atheist position on such questions, in fact, as you will also find atheists who favor an accomodationist view or even seek to have government endorse religion (Allan Bloom is one prominent example, as are many of his fellow Straussians). Comment: Of course there are de facto, operating “atheist positions” on such questions – by which I mean Godless positions, positions which leave out entirely and ignore the God of the Bible and His Word. Mr. Brayton: As for the three branches of our national government being atheist...I am tempted to denounce this as utter nonsense, but Prof. Volokh would no doubt say that's not being collegial enough for this list. But once in a while, you come across a statement that is so absurd that it would be perverse to pretend that it's not; I would politely suggest that this is one of them. Comment: Well, let’s see, please, if what I said is “utter nonsense” or “absurd.” In the New Testament, in Romans 13, 1-8, God tells us the purpose of civil government. It’s powers are ordained of God and our rulers are to be ministers of His Law. Do any of our three branches of national government acknowledge this verbally or actually strive to do God’s Will through applying His Word? No. Mr. Brayton: Can you name an atheist in Congress? If you can, I doubt you can name more than a handful. No one openly atheist could get elected in America or stay in office for long, for reasons Prof. Volokh spelled out yesterday based on public opinion polls. Our government is run almost exclusively by theists, mostly of the Christian variety, and has for a very long time. Comment: Not talking about anyone “openly atheist” but rather de facto, operational atheists. That being the case, I would say that virtually every member of Congress – de facto, operationally – is, in terms of their works, an atheist. I may, however, be wrong. Tell me, please, who in Congress says he believes about civil government what Romans 13:1-8 says and he acts like he believes this? When was the last time you heard a member of Congress oppose or endorse anything because it was against or in conformity to God’s view of civil government? Our government may, indeed, be run almost exclusively by “theists,” mostly Christians. But they are “Christian” in name only. We do not have a Christian government. Why? Because the so-called “faith” of these “Christians” is not applied to their works. And this means their “Christian/theistic” faith is DEAD because Scripture says a “faith” which produces no “works” is dead, no faith. Finally, a footnote on my use of the word “atheist.” It is my not really Biblically accurate shorthand for an unbeliever, meaning one who is not a Bible-believing (OT NT) Christian. St. Paul, in Romans 1:18ff, makes it clear that ALL men know there is a God; some worship Him, others don’t and hold down this truth (that there is a God) in unrighteousness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an “atheist” – meaning a person who really believes there is no God. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
I appreciate Prof. Dane's serious response to what I wrote. And, for-the-record, I would like to say that although I am a Bible-believing, Calvinistic, postmillennialst, I (we) are very critical of the so-called Religious Right because most of their leaders are Republican Party cheerleaders and not first,Christian, leaders. See, please, our Mission Statement. May God bless us all -- as He does when we obey Him. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com ___ 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.
Interview Texas Sup Ct. Judge
It occurs to me that some of you might be interested in listening to and, perhaps, commenting on my interview with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, a long-time personal friend of Bush Sup Ct. Nominee (R.I.P.) Harriet Miers. We discuss: Miss Miers and abortion; God; the Bible; judging; what is “law”; oaths; and much more. If interested, go, please, to TheAmericanView.com. click on American View Radio; it's Show #27. God bless you all. John Lofton, co-Host The American View and Recovering Republican... ___ 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.
Review/O'Connor Book
If anyone is interested, I'll email you my review/essay of Sandra Day O'Connor's book “The Majesty Of The Law: Reflections Of A Supreme Court Justice.” Is it pro or con? Well, I report (and comment), you decide. But, I will say this: I agree with the assertion that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. God bless you all. John Lofton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Recovering Republican; Editor, TheAmericanView.com. ___ 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.
Lofton/Secular Purpose
I wonder -- seriously -- if God says, Psalm 9:17, that nations that forget Him are turned into Hell, does it serve a secular purpose to acknolwedge and obey Him and, thus , NOT be turned into Hell? God bless you all. John Lofton, Recovering Republican, Editor, TheAmericanView.com ___ 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.
New Religion/Law (Sort Of) Web Site
www.TheAmericanView.com ___ 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.
New Religion/Law (Sort Of) Web Site
www.TheAmericanView.com ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: ACLU sues over court oaths
Exodus 20:1-3: And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me. --- John Lofton. ___ 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.
John Lofton/Oaths
Interesting what happens when you de-abstractionize discussions by being specific, by, for example, simply quoting God's Word. In any event, let me take a swing at the questions asked below. My point was that, as God says, there's only one God --- Him. You either take an oath to Him or a false god. And He is relevant to everything. As for the state and theology, ALL states take a position on this theological matter by --- for example, in their laws --- being either Godly or un-Godly. In fact, our country was founded, in part, on theological beliefs. The Declaration of Independence refers to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, and how all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. It appeals to the Supreme Judge of the world and mentions a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence. Sounds theological to me. But, I am not suggesting that the state take a position on matters theological. I am saying that, inescapably, ALL states do EXACTLY this! They are either for or against God. There is no neutrality here --- none! For example, all states will either believe or not believe what our Founders said here in the Declaration, or they will not. However, a state taking a position for or against God/Christ/Scripture does NOT mean establishing a national religion in the sense of the kind of state church England has. No way. And I wonder, can Mr. Pardee be serious when he asks, or seems to ask, in effect: What difference does it make whether, in an oath, one is swearing to a true or false God? May God bless us all. John Lofton. On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exodus 20:1-3: And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me. --- John Lofton. Could John Lofton please explain the relevance of his quotation to the law of religion as applicable to this oath controversy (for the slow such as me)? David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Law School Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. John Lofton wrote on 07/28/2005 11:06:41 AM: Exodus 20:1-3: And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. --- John Lofton. But unless you are suggesting that the state take a position on a purely theological matter, which would display extraordinary disregard for the establishment clause (even as understood by those of us who are conservative Christians), what bearing does this have on the matter of court oaths? Brad Pardee ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Lofton/ The Faith Of John Roberts
It has been said, in part: Whether Judge Roberts is a reader of Finnis or not, I think when he refers to following the rule of law he means that he will follow the law as enacted rather than substituting for it his view of what is just. Comment: Enacted by WHOM? This is the most important question hanging over this entire discussion: Who is the law-giver, the ultimate source of law -- God or man? And when Judge Roberts says, repeatedly, that he does not believe it is proper to infer a lawyer's personal views or beliefs from the arguments advanced by that lawyer on behalf of a client, one answer is: Of course you can. And one thing you can infer is that the lawyer did not personally believe the client or cause to be so ub-Godly, immoral or illegal that he refused to defend said client and/or cause. May God bless us all --- as He does when we obey Him. John Lofton. ___ 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.
John Lofton/Re: what does the right REALLY think of Roberts?
To try and understand what conservatives who are Christians FIRST think about John Roberts, you might want to visit, please, Peroutka2004.com, click on the first story and listen to our radio show on this subject. Thanks. And God bless you all. John Lofton, co-host The American View, syndicated by Radio America. ___ 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.
John Lofton/Role Of Judges?
C'mon, gang, I need some help here. Had only one reply to my Q: What is the role of a judge; what MUST a judge do? And, please, briefly define your terms if you use a word like justice. Thanks. God bless you all. -- John Lofton 313 Montgomery St., Laurel, Maryland 20707 Home Phone: 301-490-7266 Work Phone: 410-766-8591 Cell Phone: 301-873-4612 Fax: 410-766-8592 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Dear Sandy: The idea of the state IS a theological proposition, friend. God bless you. JL -- John Lofton 313 Montgomery St., Laurel, Maryland 20707 Home Phone: 301-490-7266 Work Phone: 410-766-8591 Cell Phone: 301-873-4612 Fax: 410-766-8592 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
Lofton/Role Of Judges
A question, please, to help me with article I am working on. Stated as succinctly as possible, answer, please, this question: What is the first duty of a judge, and why? Thank you. John Lofton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- John Lofton 313 Montgomery St., Laurel, Maryland 20707 Home Phone: 301-490-7266 Work Phone: 410-766-8591 Cell Phone: 301-873-4612 Fax: 410-766-8592 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
Re: On topic discussion regarding homosexuality
Mr. Newsome writes, in part: I think a case can be made for same-sex marriage that does not, at the same time, justify plural marriages or other arrangements other than heterosexual or homosexual marriage between two people. Comment: Please make this case. I'd be very interested to hear it. John Lofton. John Lofton 313 Montgomery St., Laurel, Maryland 20707 Home Phone: 301-490-7266 Work Phone: 410-766-8591 Cell Phone: 301-873-4612 Fax: 410-766-8592 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
Lofton/NRO Article
I agree with Mark's last post entirely except for at least one, perhaps two, minor points: (1) My argument does not say that there can be no IDer, just that given the facts of this world there can't be one or at least there isn't one given these facts. (2) His reference to the argument from evil or suffering as my argument. Would that I were so lucky or talented. Bobby Comment: H. More interesting presuppositions. The Joe Friday approach, eh? Just the facts. So, what/Who makes a fact a fact? And since there is no such thing as brute factuality, all facts are intrepreted facts, viwed through a grid of some kind, into some sort of frame of reference. So,on what basis, by what standard, do you say what you say re: the IDer you rule out? John Lofton. John Lofton 313 Montgomery St., Laurel, Maryland 20707 Home Phone: 301-490-7266 Work Phone: 410-766-8591 Cell Phone: 301-873-4612 Fax: 410-766-8592 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
