RE: From the list custodian

[Alan Brownstein]

Thanks, Eugene! I think your advice is well taken. I certainly intend to spend 
more time breathing deeply over the next few days since I don't think I can 
contribute anything thoughtful or useful to the list given the current tenor of 
the discussion.



Alan


From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian

Folks:  I think we’ve been departing in recent days from the 
politeness and thoughtfulness that has generally made this discussion list 
especially valuable.  Personal attacks are unlikely to persuade anyone -- even 
bystanders -- and are just likely to poison the well for future debate.  Let’s 
all take some deep breaths, and refocus ourselves on substantive discussion of 
the legal issues.

Eugene
The list custodian
___
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

[Michael Worley]

Why so people think this is?  It seems to me that if this topic is
difficult, it indicates a deeper problem about the two sides not crossing
in their reasoning, which means the Arizona bill goes back to fundamental
questions about the role of religion, which is hard to debate.


On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Volokh, Eugene  wrote:

> Folks:  I think we've been departing in recent days from
> the politeness and thoughtfulness that has generally made this discussion
> list especially valuable.  Personal attacks are unlikely to persuade anyone
> -- even bystanders -- and are just likely to poison the well for future
> debate.  Let's all take some deep breaths, and refocus ourselves on
> substantive discussion of the legal issues.
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
> The list custodian
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Michael Worley
BYU Law School, Class of 2014
___
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.

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  I think we've been departing in recent days from the 
politeness and thoughtfulness that has generally made this discussion list 
especially valuable.  Personal attacks are unlikely to persuade anyone -- even 
bystanders -- and are just likely to poison the well for future debate.  Let's 
all take some deep breaths, and refocus ourselves on substantive discussion of 
the legal issues.

Eugene
The list custodian
___
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.

One more item from the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

One more item:  Please include your full name and affiliation in the posts, 
unless it’s obvious from your e-mail address.  Thanks,

The list custodian
___
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.

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  This list is designed for technical legal discussions 
about the law of government and religion, and is aimed generally at law 
professors who specialize in the field.  Please keep list discussions focused 
on that, rather than on general discussions about other areas of the law (or 
even on nontechnical discussions about law and religion).

The list custodian



From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Len
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:26 PM
To: Mark Scarberry; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: A right not to be compelled to create expression?

Regardless of the models, I did not pay thousands for my photos.  A few hundred 
for the graduation photos, and a few hundred for the wedding photos 30 years 
ago.

It is my understanding that the studio protects all photos by way of copyright 
that are posted and accessed via its website services.  That condition would 
make sense, as it protects the clients as well as itself.  However, that was a 
service I wasn't interested in, and purchased one of their more traditional 
packages.

How interesting that my experience was so unusual.


So, in your opinion, I retain copyright to the oil-on-canvas portraits I was 
commissioned to do in the mid 1970's?  Interesting.  True, there aren't many 
(seven) and I was paid cash, but I was able to eat and to put gas in my place 
of lodging.  Would I now be able to demand access to these works, photograph 
them and use them in a portfolio?

I apologize to all, but I've had some disappointing experience with 
intellectual property rights.  A firm I worked for many years ago demanded that 
I sign over rights to a R&D project I had worked on for two years, in exchange 
for wages already paid.  I had not been under such an agreement up until that 
time.  The license to that work was then sold to a high-profile client for an 
amount in the low seven figures.  The firm's attorney threatened me with legal 
action if I did not sign off and accept the token $1.  I did, and was 
terminated three weeks later.  My name remains on six of the patents, however.  
To me they're worth exactly the value of the paper they're printed on.

I have been required to sign over intellectual property rights as a condition 
of hire ever since.  The conditions even include any items I might design or 
invent on my own time that are unrelated to the company's business.  Many 
people I've worked with have also had to sign non-compete clauses, which have 
kept talented (and well-paid) engineers out of work for years, effectively 
ending their careers.

I therefore don't have a high regard for such laws.

More relevant to the topic, I think it is rather sad and pathetic that the work 
of an artisan who mechanically produces work for hire is considered to be on 
par with an artist who produces creative work.  This lumps in and treats as 
equals the neighborhood photographer with Annie Leibovitz and Ansel Adams.

Producing memorabilia is not art, it is a craft.  I'm sure all present know the 
difference, or should.

I understand what the laws say and have read the commentaries with great 
interest.  In my opinion mere competence with a camera is not art.  Art, and 
therefore speech is something else.  I'm sure no one here will mind that I 
don't repeat the obvious Dickensian reference.

Thanks for your patience.

-Z
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  Please make sure the discussion is focused on legal analysis, not 
general matters of right and wrong or good or bad policy, except insofar as 
they are tied to the legal analysis.  The recent discussion of marriage 
restrictions has departed in some measure from the list’s focus on the law of 
government and religion, and that’s fine.  But we should keep things focused on 
law here, since the purpose of the list is discussion of the law of government 
and religion (and, in this instance, of marriage) that is helpful for legal 
academics who are doing research on the subject.  Thanks,

The list custodian

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Len
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 2:53 AM
To: b...@jmcenter.org; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

How so, Bob?  Please explain why the state may interfere in our decision 
whether to have children or not, or HOW, and why procreation should be a 
prescribed goal of marriage?

Marriage is a contract between two consenting individuals.  The terms of that 
marriage are up to the parties involved, presumably so long as no laws are 
broken.

I think a good argument may be made that population growth is unsustainable, 
but I don't recall that its ever been asserted by government that whether one 
has children or not is a state interest.  Except in China, and we see it's 
working well for them.


From: b...@jmcenter.org
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:26:02 PM
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
Len,

Given the extreme overpopulation of the U.S. and the world, the state does 
indeed have a substantial interest -- at least in the number of children 
parents produce. (The current population footprint is not environmentally 
sustainable.)

Bob Ritter
On July 3, 2013 at 10:17 PM Len 
mailto:campquest...@comcast.net>> wrote:

This is going to sound awfully libertarian of me, but it's none of the state's 
business whether a couple has children or not, regardless of age.  Rather it is 
my understanding that the care and treatment of children resulting from a given 
union (by whatever means) are appropriate state interests.

(Not only was Abraham not a model parent, but also reads as an extortionist and 
pimp.)


From: "Sanford V Levinson" 
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>>
To: "Mark Scarberry" 
mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>>, "Law & 
Religion issues for Law Academics" 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 9:49:40 PM
Subject: RE: Marriage -- the Alito dissent


I realize that my following question gets into another hot-button area, but is 
Mark suggesting that there is a strong constitutional interest in procreation 
at any age?  Why can’t the state come to the altogether rational conclusion 
that it is really unwise for, say, a 55-year-old couple to have children unless 
the couple has enough resources to cover the costs of taking care of children 
even after their retirement (not to mention covering the costs of likely 
medical care)?   I agree that is probably not a compelling state interest, at 
least in a quasi-libertarian society, but I certainly think it is at least a 
rational, say, as the defenses being asserted for DOMA.  Of course it may be 
that medical advances in the future will make Sarah and Abraham models to 
emulate, though I tend to be skeptical.  In any event, Abraham was a dreadful 
father who proved willing to kill his child because of a totally arbitrary 
command to do so.  (It is irrelevant that, at least according to the Bible, God 
sent the innocent lamb to be sacrificed instead  There are Midrash, 
incidentally, that suggest that no lamb appeared, which explains why only 
Abraham climbed down the mountain and Isaac was not heard from again for three 
years, by which time Sarah was dead.  One can only imagine the conversation 
that ensued when Abraham came back to the tent without Isaac and had to explain 
why he was alone.  He’s lucky that she didn’t kill him then and there.  But I 
digress….)

sandy

From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:12 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent

The biological issues with regard to different sex couples mostly can be 
answered fairly easily, I think, including with these points:

With regard to medical or similar issues that prevent procreation, a state 
inquiry would intrude substantially on privacy, which would justify the state 
in not inquiring. (Also, some couples who have given up on conceiving, later 
are surprised to find that they have.)

With regard to age,

Re: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian

[JOHN LOFTON]

And you mean by "purely secular" what? Thank you. JL


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: Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:13 pm
Subject: RE: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian



??? I don't insist that people speak in thousands of words -- but in my 
experience, "pithy" one-liners rarely tell us much, and beyond that, most law 
professors who specialize in the field have heard pretty much all the pithy 
one-liners before.? We've heard that church and state should be separate, and 
we know how many different interpretations there are of that.? We've heard that 
all government is "religious" under certain sufficiently broad definitions of 
"religion," but that doesn't really tell us what government actions with regard 
to religion are permissible.

?

??? Now I know that some people disagree, and find such generalities more 
helpful than I do.? And naturally, different list operators may have different 
views on the subject.? But, on this list,?I hope you'd be good enough to 
accommodate my preferences on this score.

?

??? Eugene



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:56 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian




There's no such thing as a "purely secular" government. And do you have 
software that automatically gripes about whatever I say? Every time I post 
something that's pithy, to the point, packed with wisdom, and?with no 
bloviating, you complain. And my most recent statement, and the one that begins 
this post, is designed precisely to "foster concrete discussion." I realize why 
many lawyers believe that something, in order to make sense, must be said in 
thousands of words, but I disagree. Am I allowed to disagree? Perhaps we might 
begin a "concrete discussion", Mr. List Custodian, with? you saying what you 
mean by "purely secular." Or we might?even discuss what constitutes a "concrete 
discussion." 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.


-----Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:50 pm
Subject: From the list custodian



??? Folks:? Let me mention again that list discussion tends to be most helpful 
when it goes into concrete and detailed analysis, and not cliche generalities.

?

??? Recall that the thread began with a post discussing what protection should 
be offered to speech that's critical of religion.? I'm pretty sure that 
generalities about "government and religion should [be kept separate]" or "all 
government is religious" are not that helpful here; at that level of 
abstraction, those generalities tell us very little about how particular speech 
restrictions should be treated.? 

?

??? For instance, even a purely secular government might choose to ban certain 
statements about religious groups, alongside certain statements about races, 
sexual orientations, and the like, because of a concern that such statements 
might cause violent reactions by their targets, might incite violence against 
their targets, or might simply cause unjustified emotional distress to their 
targets.? I oppose such restrictions, but I can't defend that opposition 
through generalities such as separation of church and state.? Conversely, even 
a religiously-based government might well decide not to ban speach critical of 
various religions.

?

??? More broadly, please note that the main purpose of this list is to foster 
concrete discussion -- discussion useful to legal academics -- on technical 
legal questions related to the law of government and religion.? 

?

??? Eugene



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:38 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion




ALL government is "religious." The only question is: Which "religion" will a 
government be based on. 


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: CAROL MOORE

RE: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

I don't insist that people speak in thousands of words -- but in my
experience, "pithy" one-liners rarely tell us much, and beyond that,
most law professors who specialize in the field have heard pretty much
all the pithy one-liners before.  We've heard that church and state
should be separate, and we know how many different interpretations there
are of that.  We've heard that all government is "religious" under
certain sufficiently broad definitions of "religion," but that doesn't
really tell us what government actions with regard to religion are
permissible.
 
Now I know that some people disagree, and find such generalities
more helpful than I do.  And naturally, different list operators may
have different views on the subject.  But, on this list, I hope you'd be
good enough to accommodate my preferences on this score.
 
Eugene




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:56 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian


There's no such thing as a "purely secular" government. And do
you have software that automatically gripes about whatever I say? Every
time I post something that's pithy, to the point, packed with wisdom,
and with no bloviating, you complain. And my most recent statement, and
the one that begins this post, is designed precisely to "foster concrete
discussion." I realize why many lawyers believe that something, in order
to make sense, must be said in thousands of words, but I disagree. Am I
allowed to disagree? Perhaps we might begin a "concrete discussion", Mr.
List Custodian, with  you saying what you mean by "purely secular." Or
we might even discuss what constitutes a "concrete discussion." 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.


-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
    To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics

Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:50 pm
Subject: From the list custodian


Folks:  Let me mention again that list discussion tends to
be most helpful when it goes into concrete and detailed analysis, and
not cliche generalities.
 
Recall that the thread began with a post discussing what
protection should be offered to speech that's critical of religion.  I'm
pretty sure that generalities about "government and religion should [be
kept separate]" or "all government is religious" are not that helpful
here; at that level of abstraction, those generalities tell us very
little about how particular speech restrictions should be treated.  
 
For instance, even a purely secular government might choose
to ban certain statements about religious groups, alongside certain
statements about races, sexual orientations, and the like, because of a
concern that such statements might cause violent reactions by their
targets, might incite violence against their targets, or might simply
cause unjustified emotional distress to their targets.  I oppose such
restrictions, but I can't defend that opposition through generalities
such as separation of church and state.  Conversely, even a
religiously-based government might well decide not to ban speach
critical of various religions.
 
More broadly, please note that the main purpose of this list
is to foster concrete discussion -- discussion useful to legal academics
-- on technical legal questions related to the law of government and
religion.  
 
Eugene




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:38 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion


ALL government is "religious." The only question is:
Which "religion" will a government be based on. 


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: CAROL MOORE <[EMAIL PR

LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian

[JOHN LOFTON]

There's no such thing as a "purely secular" government. And do you have 
software that automatically gripes about whatever I say? Every time I post 
something that's pithy, to the point, packed with wisdom, and?with no 
bloviating, you complain. And my most recent statement, and the one that begins 
this post, is designed precisely to "foster concrete discussion." I realize why 
many lawyers believe that something, in order to make sense, must be said in 
thousands of words, but I disagree. Am I allowed to disagree? Perhaps we might 
begin a "concrete discussion", Mr. List Custodian, with? you saying what you 
mean by "purely secular." Or we might?even discuss what constitutes a "concrete 
discussion." 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.


-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:50 pm
Subject: From the list custodian



??? Folks:? Let me mention again that list discussion tends to be most helpful 
when it goes into concrete and detailed analysis, and not cliche generalities.

?

??? Recall that the thread began with a post discussing what protection should 
be offered to speech that's critical of religion.? I'm pretty sure that 
generalities about "government and religion should [be kept separate]" or "all 
government is religious" are not that helpful here; at that level of 
abstraction, those generalities tell us very little about how particular speech 
restrictions should be treated.? 

?

??? For instance, even a purely secular government might choose to ban certain 
statements about religious groups, alongside certain statements about races, 
sexual orientations, and the like, because of a concern that such statements 
might cause violent reactions by their targets, might incite violence against 
their targets, or might simply cause unjustified emotional distress to their 
targets.? I oppose such restrictions, but I can't defend that opposition 
through generalities such as separation of church and state.? Conversely, even 
a religiously-based government might well decide not to ban speach critical of 
various religions.

?

??? More broadly, please note that the main purpose of this list is to foster 
concrete discussion -- discussion useful to legal academics -- on technical 
legal questions related to the law of government and religion.? 

?

??? Eugene



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:38 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion




ALL government is "religious." The only question is: Which "religion" will a 
government be based on. 


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: CAROL MOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:34 pm
Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion



And if this discussion doesn't make one want to dig up James Madison and
kiss his molding corpse for penning "Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion..." I don't know what would.  With all due
respect to those who profess belief, government and religion should have
separate bedrooms, if not separate houses, with no conjugal visits.  This
trend puts Nixon's domino theory in a new light.
Carol Moore
Gentle Reader  



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

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


The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Now! 




___
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 ot

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  Let me mention again that list discussion tends to be most
helpful when it goes into concrete and detailed analysis, and not cliche
generalities.
 
Recall that the thread began with a post discussing what protection
should be offered to speech that's critical of religion.  I'm pretty
sure that generalities about "government and religion should [be kept
separate]" or "all government is religious" are not that helpful here;
at that level of abstraction, those generalities tell us very little
about how particular speech restrictions should be treated.  
 
For instance, even a purely secular government might choose to ban
certain statements about religious groups, alongside certain statements
about races, sexual orientations, and the like, because of a concern
that such statements might cause violent reactions by their targets,
might incite violence against their targets, or might simply cause
unjustified emotional distress to their targets.  I oppose such
restrictions, but I can't defend that opposition through generalities
such as separation of church and state.  Conversely, even a
religiously-based government might well decide not to ban speach
critical of various religions.
 
More broadly, please note that the main purpose of this list is to
foster concrete discussion -- discussion useful to legal academics -- on
technical legal questions related to the law of government and religion.

 
Eugene




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:38 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion


ALL government is "religious." The only question is: Which
"religion" will a government be based on. 


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: CAROL MOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:34 pm
Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion


And if this discussion doesn't make one want to dig up James
Madison and
kiss his molding corpse for penning "Congress shall make no law
respecting
the establishment of religion..." I don't know what would.  With
all due
respect to those who profess belief, government and religion
should have
separate bedrooms, if not separate houses, with no conjugal
visits.  This
trend puts Nixon's domino theory in a new light.
Carol Moore
Gentle Reader  



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

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




The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the
TMZ Toolbar Now
 ! 

___
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: theological discussions

[Newsom Michael]

I agree. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Landsberg
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 4:22 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: From the list custodian re: theological discussions

Hallelujah!

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/2/2006 1:02:49 PM >>>
I thought I'd briefly note that as a general matter, purely
theological discussions -- such as what the Bible allows or forbids --
are not on-topic for the list; the list is about the secular law
related
to religious practice, practitioners, and institutions (what I
somewhat
clunkily call "The Law of Government and Religion"), and not about
religious law.  One-shot queries for help with questions of religious
law (such as the one that started the thread) are generally fine,
since
there are likely quite a few people on the list who would have answers
to such questions, and such queries are therefore an easy way of
advancing people's research.   But extended discussions about
religious
law are generally off-topic.

This having been said, I haven't spoken up about the polygamy
thread, because many list members seem to have been interested in it,
and because the list has been relatively quiet on other matters, so it
hasn't been detracting from on-topic discussions.  (I've also been
swamped with other things, so I didn't really focus on the thread
until
recently.)  I did, however, want to note that this thread shouldn't be
seen as precedent for other on-list theological discussions; and to
suggest that now that the thread has been active for some days and
several dozen posts, it might be worthwhile to wind it down.  Thanks,

The list custodian
___
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.

From the list custodian re: theological discussions

[Brian Landsberg]

Hallelujah!

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/2/2006 1:02:49 PM >>>
I thought I'd briefly note that as a general matter, purely
theological discussions -- such as what the Bible allows or forbids --
are not on-topic for the list; the list is about the secular law
related
to religious practice, practitioners, and institutions (what I
somewhat
clunkily call "The Law of Government and Religion"), and not about
religious law.  One-shot queries for help with questions of religious
law (such as the one that started the thread) are generally fine,
since
there are likely quite a few people on the list who would have answers
to such questions, and such queries are therefore an easy way of
advancing people's research.   But extended discussions about
religious
law are generally off-topic.

This having been said, I haven't spoken up about the polygamy
thread, because many list members seem to have been interested in it,
and because the list has been relatively quiet on other matters, so it
hasn't been detracting from on-topic discussions.  (I've also been
swamped with other things, so I didn't really focus on the thread
until
recently.)  I did, however, want to note that this thread shouldn't be
seen as precedent for other on-list theological discussions; and to
suggest that now that the thread has been active for some days and
several dozen posts, it might be worthwhile to wind it down.  Thanks,

The list custodian
___
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.

From the list custodian re: theological discussions

[Volokh, Eugene]

I thought I'd briefly note that as a general matter, purely
theological discussions -- such as what the Bible allows or forbids --
are not on-topic for the list; the list is about the secular law related
to religious practice, practitioners, and institutions (what I somewhat
clunkily call "The Law of Government and Religion"), and not about
religious law.  One-shot queries for help with questions of religious
law (such as the one that started the thread) are generally fine, since
there are likely quite a few people on the list who would have answers
to such questions, and such queries are therefore an easy way of
advancing people's research.   But extended discussions about religious
law are generally off-topic.

This having been said, I haven't spoken up about the polygamy
thread, because many list members seem to have been interested in it,
and because the list has been relatively quiet on other matters, so it
hasn't been detracting from on-topic discussions.  (I've also been
swamped with other things, so I didn't really focus on the thread until
recently.)  I did, however, want to note that this thread shouldn't be
seen as precedent for other on-list theological discussions; and to
suggest that now that the thread has been active for some days and
several dozen posts, it might be worthwhile to wind it down.  Thanks,

The list custodian
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: And Now For Something Completely Different

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  Whether the Church is behaving consistently or well is not, it
seems to me, a matter of the law of government and religion.  I suspect
that the lines drawn by religious people often seem inconsistent or even
hypocritical to those outside the faith.  I imagine that there are those
who would speak of various alleged inconsistencies in Judaism, for
instance, with the same contempt that Prof. Finkelman shows towards what
he sees as inconsistencies in Catholicism.  I see little benefit in
debating these questions on this list; they are more suited to
discussions of Catholic theology and morality -- surely important
topics, but not ones that are terribly relevant to the law of government
and religion.

More particularly, I should note that what counts as complicity in evil
and what counts as amelioration of evil is a notoriously mushy area.  We
see that in secular American law.  We see that in secular moral debates,
for instance about needle exchange programs.  It shouldn't be surprising
that different religious groups would come to different conclusions
about the kind and degree of aid involved in different situations.  It
might be wiser, then, to accept that others may have a different view
without being hypocrites or supporters of destroying lives.  But in any
event, I stress again that this is a matter for other places than this
list.

The list custodian




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:24 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different


The church claims to oppose capital pubishemt, but sends priests in to
the prisons to help calm prisoners and get them ready to be killed; the
church would say this is not complicitous; but I don't see a whole lot
of difference between working in the prisons to make capital punishment
easy for the exectuioners and the state and helping children find homes
with parents who might be gay.  In one case the Church says it is doing
it to help the victims of the state's execution policy (but it also
helps the state) and in another case it will not help the vicitms of
disfunctional families (the children) because it does not believe in
same sex relations; in NEITHER case is it endorsing same sex relations
or capital punishment but the Church chooses to work with one system
that takes lives against church teaching, but will not work with another
system that helps SAVE lives of children, because some of the people
involved do things that the church opposes.  I should add that one would
hope the church sees killing as worse than being gay.  

The way I see this the issue is all about politics and the church
playing ever anit-gay card it has.
Imagine the public reaction if the Church said it WOULD NOT work with
the prison system; that it would not offer communion to any politician
who supported capital punishment (as Bishops urged with John Kerry) and
would furthermore, not offer Communion anyone who who worked in prisons
where executions took place or to judges who ordered them or prosecutors
who asked for the death penalty or jurors who voted for it!  
I am not arguing the church should do any of these things, I am merely
pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the church's position on
these two issues -- 
Anti-gay to hurt kids; but not willing to follow through to save lives.
Perhaps the consistency is that both policies end up destroying lives.

Paul

Will Esser wrote:

Paul,

The problem that I have with your use of the term "complicity" is that
it is so large as to have no meaningful boundaries.  You contend that by
allowing priests to hear the confessions of inmates who are on death
row, the Church is complicit with (and somehow shares moral
responsibility for) capital punishment.  Your reasoning seems to apply
equally to doctors who serve the medical needs of those on death row, as
well as the Red Cross providing assistance to those affected by war.  I
think everyone on this list would agree that there is no complicity in
such situations.

Providing priests to serve the spiritual needs of those on death row is
not inconsistent with the position which Catholic Charities is now
taking.  And Massachusetts should realize that an exemption from the law
is proper step to take to resolve this issue.

Will
&nb! sp;


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I suggested with the church complicity with executions (and maybe
unjust wars, and many other things in society), the church chooses its
causes based on politics. I real test of the church would come when
bishops condemn politicians who order executions or start unjust wars as
vigorously has they work to keep kids in our foster care system rather
than helping them find loving homes with loving adults.

The Human Rights campaign is right on target with this statement. Thanks
Rick for sharing this. 

Quoting Rick Duncan :

> Human Rights Campaign says:"Boston Catholic Cha

From the list custodian RE: And Now For Something Completely Different

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  Let's stick with questions of the law of government and
religion, which are the list's strength, and the area in which we seem
likely to help enlighten each other.  Whether a church is hypocritical,
foolish, complicit in evil things, politically driven, or whatever else
is not, it seems to me, on-topic except insofar as it bears pretty
closely on the law of government and religion.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:48 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Rick Duncan
> Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different
> 
> 
> As I suggested with the church complicity with executions 
> (and maybe unjust wars, and many other things in society), 
> the church chooses its causes based on politics.  I real test 
> of the church would come when bishops condemn politicians who 
> order executions or start unjust wars as vigorously has they 
> work to keep kids in our foster care system rather than 
> helping them find loving homes with loving adults.
> 
> The Human Rights campaign is right on target with this 
> statement. Thanks Rick for sharing this.  
> 
> Quoting Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Human Rights Campaign says:"Boston Catholic Charities puts ugly 
> > political agenda before child welfare." Link. Excerpt:
> >
> >
> >   "Denying children a loving and stable home serves absolutely no 
> > higher purpose," said Solmonese. "These bishops are putting an ugly 
> > political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable 
> children. Every 
> > one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a 
> > parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to 
> > raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, 
> wrong and has 
> > nothing to do whatsoever with faith."
> >
> >   Rick Duncan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   Rick Duncan
> > Welpton Professor of Law 
> > University of Nebraska College of Law 
> > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
> >
> >   
> > "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow 
> either Galahad 
> > or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
> > 
> > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, 
> debriefed, or 
> > numbered." --The Prisoner
> > 
> > 
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> Univ. of Tulsa College of Law
> 2120 East 4th Place
> Tulsa OK  74104-3189
> 
> Phone: 918-631-3706
> Fax:918-631-2194
> ___
> 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.

From the list custodian RE: So what's the deal?

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  It might help to be a bit more explicit when posing such
questions, rather than just relying on labeling ("compassionate
coercion"), conclusory assertions, and links that people may not have
much time to follow.  What's the issue?  Why is what's going on
coercive?  What are the obvious counterarguments as to why it wouldn't
be coercive?  Why is this a constitutional violation?

Also, it's usually a mistake to ask why people on this list are
reluctant to get involved in things.  Some of them may well be involved;
others may be spending their time elsewhere; others may be scholars more
than people who get involved on the litigation side.  Please don't
assume that just because some issue is important, each academic who
works in the general field is going to get involved in it.

Please also remember that the list, though open to the public at
large, is aimed at academic discussions of the law of government and
religion.  The more detail and thoughtful analysis one can include in
the posts, the more helpful the posts will be.

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tommy Perkins
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:44 PM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: So what's the deal?
> 
> 
> 
> In 2002 Prez Bush proclaimed "compassionate coercion":
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020212-2.html
> 
> In 1991 Archie Brodsky of Harvard Medical School wrote:
> 
> "And it is one of the most blatant and pervasive violations of 
> constitutional rights in the United States today. After all, 
> even murderers 
> on death row are not forced to pray."
> 
> http://www.peele.net/lib/aaabuse.html
> 
> So what's the deal?  Why are the people on this list so 
> reluctant to get 
> into this issue?
> 
> 
> ___
> 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.

From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  Let me say it again -- please keep posts on-topic, which
is to say pretty closely focused on the law of government and religion.
The original thread had to do with whether Title VII's religious
accommodation provision, or perhaps the Free Exercise Clause or the Free
Speech Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class
posters; that's on-topic.  This post is not on-topic.  Please abide by
the list discussion rules.

The list custodian 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:24 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
> 
> 
> Applying such isolated events (specific) to an entire class 
> (general) is just the sort of logical fallacy that has led to 
> all sorts of distortions in law and public policy during 
> recent decades of "political correctness."  The same sort of 
> manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in 
> regard to the Holocaust Industry.  The Religion of the 
> Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes.  Here's a good
> summary:
> 
> Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties
> 
> CounterThink, Taiwan
> 
> Jan. 24, 2006
> 
> Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment 
> to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete 
> understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were 
> gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. 
> 
> The typical rhetoric goes: "these bigots deny the facts and 
> lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. 
> 
> In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being 
> apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. 
> 
> These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and 
> historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, 
> German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. 
> 
> In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need 
> special laws to protect it? 
> 
> Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. 
> It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put 
> the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. 
> 
> It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier "facts" 
> regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed 
> out for popular consumption. 
> 
> As for the "un-revisable" six million figure, Jews have 
> superstitious reasons pertaining to the number "six" for 
> claiming that six million died. 
> 
> In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, 
> incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews 
> facing death during WWI. 
> 
> Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is 
> that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they 
> could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. 
> 
> Holocaust lore is essential to the precarious legitimacy of 
> the Jewish State. 
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the Nazis blamed the Jews for America's 
> entry into WWI as well as the unjust and punitive Treaty of 
> Versailles which followed. 
> 
> This deliberate mischaracterization of Holocaust revisionism 
> has been spread widely and purposefully by keepers of the 
> Holocaust faith. 
> 
> One reader suggested that we call the search for truth in 
> this matter "Holocaust factualism".
> 
> http://www.counterthink.org/016944.html
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general69/hol.htm
> 
> Larry Darby, Democratic candidate for
> Attorney General of Alabama.
> http://www.larrydarby.com/
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Finkelman
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:00 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
> 
> Rick:
> 
> Maybe the test ought to be which "whiny" group has suffered 
> persecution,
> 
> gets murdered, beaten up, and threatned (or beaten up and 
> left tied to a
> 
> fence overnight in Wyoming); which group lives in fear day-to-day of 
> being attacked for the essence of who they are?  which needs the 
> protection of the school and which needs to have the majority 
> group be 
> educated about the fundamental wrongness of harming people because of 
> who they are.  Or, to put it anther way, in a majority Christian 
> country, with a born-again president, do Chrisian students feel some 
> threat that they are about to be beaten up or even killed 
> because of who
> 
> they are.  If there is a real threat to Christian student and 
> they need 
> to be protected and that they need a place of refuge to 
> avoiding being 
> harmed by fellow students, then by-all means, have a pink 
> triangle and a
> 
> little cross in a triangle as well, and let the two persecuted groups 
> meet together in a place of refuge.  
> 
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Quoting Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Ed Brayton]

Larry Darby wrote:


My post was very much material and relevant to law and religion. I
believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of Judaism or world Jewry or
global endeavors of its adherents.  No matter how often or who opposes
freedom of religion, which includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge
of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.

For a USA-First government!

Larry
 

Would it be rude of me to suggest that someone stick a dreidel in this 
guy's mouth to shut him up? Probably. I guess I better not suggest it then.


Crankily,

Ed Brayton
___
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: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Nathan Oman]

Well done...

-- Original Message --
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:22:34 -0800

>   Mr. Darby is too quick to interpret criticism -- and even
>hostility -- as stemming from "fear."  There are various verbs that
>could be used to characterize the attitude that I (and, I suspect, many
>other list members) have towards Mr. Darby.  "Fear" is not one of them.
>
>   In any event, I would have tolerated Mr. Darby's viewpoints on
>subjects related to the law of government and religion (not the
>theological or ideological qualities of a particular religion, much less
>the qualities of a particular ethnic group).  Nonetheless, he seems to
>have no inclination to follow the list rules, and I am removing him from
>the list.  I'm sure there are plenty of other places where he can
>promote his odd beliefs about history, or for that matter his Space Age
>Calendar (http://www.atheistlaw.org/news.cfm?n_type=Media+Releases) or
>his other ideas.
>
>   The list custodian
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:44 AM
>> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
>> Subject: RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and 
>> Religious Liberty
>> 
>> 
>> My post was very much material and relevant to law and 
>> religion. I believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of 
>> Judaism or world Jewry or global endeavors of its adherents.  
>> No matter how often or who opposes freedom of religion, which 
>> includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge of truth (of the 
>> HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.
>> 
>> For a USA-First government!
>> 
>> Larry
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
>> Volokh, Eugene
>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM
>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>> Subject: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and 
>> Religious Liberty
>> 
>>  Folks:  Let me say it again -- please keep posts 
>> on-topic, which is to say pretty closely focused on the law 
>> of government and religion. The original thread had to do 
>> with whether Title VII's religious accommodation provision, 
>> or perhaps the Free Exercise Clause or the Free Speech 
>> Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class 
>> posters; that's on-topic.  This post is not on-topic.  Please 
>> abide by the list discussion rules.
>> 
>>  The list custodian 
>> 
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
>> > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:24 AM
>> > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
>> > Subject: RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Applying such isolated events (specific) to an entire class
>> > (general) is just the sort of logical fallacy that has led to 
>> > all sorts of distortions in law and public policy during 
>> > recent decades of "political correctness."  The same sort of 
>> > manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in 
>> > regard to the Holocaust Industry.  The Religion of the 
>> > Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes.  Here's a good
>> > summary:
>> > 
>> > Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties
>> > 
>> > CounterThink, Taiwan
>> > 
>> > Jan. 24, 2006
>> > 
>> > Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment
>> > to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete 
>> > understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were 
>> > gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. 
>> > 
>> > The typical rhetoric goes: "these bigots deny the facts and
>> > lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. 
>> > 
>> > In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being
>> > apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. 
>> > 
>> > These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and
>> > historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, 
>> > German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. 
>> > 
>> > In an era whe

RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Larry Darby]

You bigots are funny!

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 12:23 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious
Liberty

Mr. Darby is too quick to interpret criticism -- and even
hostility -- as stemming from "fear."  There are various verbs that
could be used to characterize the attitude that I (and, I suspect, many
other list members) have towards Mr. Darby.  "Fear" is not one of them.

In any event, I would have tolerated Mr. Darby's viewpoints on
subjects related to the law of government and religion (not the
theological or ideological qualities of a particular religion, much less
the qualities of a particular ethnic group).  Nonetheless, he seems to
have no inclination to follow the list rules, and I am removing him from
the list.  I'm sure there are plenty of other places where he can
promote his odd beliefs about history, or for that matter his Space Age
Calendar (http://www.atheistlaw.org/news.cfm?n_type=Media+Releases) or
his other ideas.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:44 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and 
> Religious Liberty
> 
> 
> My post was very much material and relevant to law and 
> religion. I believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of 
> Judaism or world Jewry or global endeavors of its adherents.  
> No matter how often or who opposes freedom of religion, which 
> includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge of truth (of the 
> HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.
> 
> For a USA-First government!
> 
> Larry
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and 
> Religious Liberty
> 
>   Folks:  Let me say it again -- please keep posts 
> on-topic, which is to say pretty closely focused on the law 
> of government and religion. The original thread had to do 
> with whether Title VII's religious accommodation provision, 
> or perhaps the Free Exercise Clause or the Free Speech 
> Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class 
> posters; that's on-topic.  This post is not on-topic.  Please 
> abide by the list discussion rules.
> 
>   The list custodian 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
> > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:24 AM
> > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> > Subject: RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
> > 
> > 
> > Applying such isolated events (specific) to an entire class
> > (general) is just the sort of logical fallacy that has led to 
> > all sorts of distortions in law and public policy during 
> > recent decades of "political correctness."  The same sort of 
> > manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in 
> > regard to the Holocaust Industry.  The Religion of the 
> > Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes.  Here's a good
> > summary:
> > 
> > Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties
> > 
> > CounterThink, Taiwan
> > 
> > Jan. 24, 2006
> > 
> > Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment
> > to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete 
> > understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were 
> > gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. 
> > 
> > The typical rhetoric goes: "these bigots deny the facts and
> > lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. 
> > 
> > In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being
> > apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. 
> > 
> > These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and
> > historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, 
> > German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. 
> > 
> > In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need
> > special laws to protect it? 
> > 
> > Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime.
> > It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put 
> > the number of Jewish deaths at considera

RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Stuart BUCK]

I thought the list was moderated?  If so, perhaps Mr. Darby could be limited 
to non-inflammatory and on-topic messages (this may be a null set, of 
course).  If the list is unmoderated, perhaps Mr. Darby could be blocked?  I 
like free debate as much as anyone, but the off-topic debates that Mr. Darby 
wants to provoke are a waste of everyone's time.


Best,
Stuart


From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 


To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" 
Subject: RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious 
Liberty

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:07:16 -0800

Yes, it would be rude, albeit amply provoked; I'd prefer that
such posts not be posted to the list, either.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and
> Religious Liberty
>
>
> Larry Darby wrote:
>
> >My post was very much material and relevant to law and religion. I
> >believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of Judaism or
> world Jewry
> >or global endeavors of its adherents.  No matter how often or who
> >opposes freedom of religion, which includes criticism of
> Judaism, the
> >knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.
> >
> >For a USA-First government!
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >
> Would it be rude of me to suggest that someone stick a
> dreidel in this
> guy's mouth to shut him up? Probably. I guess I better not
> suggest it then.
>
> Crankily,
>
> Ed Brayton
> ___
> 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.


_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


___
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: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Volokh, Eugene]

Mr. Darby is too quick to interpret criticism -- and even
hostility -- as stemming from "fear."  There are various verbs that
could be used to characterize the attitude that I (and, I suspect, many
other list members) have towards Mr. Darby.  "Fear" is not one of them.

In any event, I would have tolerated Mr. Darby's viewpoints on
subjects related to the law of government and religion (not the
theological or ideological qualities of a particular religion, much less
the qualities of a particular ethnic group).  Nonetheless, he seems to
have no inclination to follow the list rules, and I am removing him from
the list.  I'm sure there are plenty of other places where he can
promote his odd beliefs about history, or for that matter his Space Age
Calendar (http://www.atheistlaw.org/news.cfm?n_type=Media+Releases) or
his other ideas.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:44 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and 
> Religious Liberty
> 
> 
> My post was very much material and relevant to law and 
> religion. I believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of 
> Judaism or world Jewry or global endeavors of its adherents.  
> No matter how often or who opposes freedom of religion, which 
> includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge of truth (of the 
> HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.
> 
> For a USA-First government!
> 
> Larry
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and 
> Religious Liberty
> 
>   Folks:  Let me say it again -- please keep posts 
> on-topic, which is to say pretty closely focused on the law 
> of government and religion. The original thread had to do 
> with whether Title VII's religious accommodation provision, 
> or perhaps the Free Exercise Clause or the Free Speech 
> Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class 
> posters; that's on-topic.  This post is not on-topic.  Please 
> abide by the list discussion rules.
> 
>   The list custodian 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
> > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:24 AM
> > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> > Subject: RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
> > 
> > 
> > Applying such isolated events (specific) to an entire class
> > (general) is just the sort of logical fallacy that has led to 
> > all sorts of distortions in law and public policy during 
> > recent decades of "political correctness."  The same sort of 
> > manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in 
> > regard to the Holocaust Industry.  The Religion of the 
> > Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes.  Here's a good
> > summary:
> > 
> > Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties
> > 
> > CounterThink, Taiwan
> > 
> > Jan. 24, 2006
> > 
> > Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment
> > to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete 
> > understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were 
> > gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. 
> > 
> > The typical rhetoric goes: "these bigots deny the facts and
> > lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. 
> > 
> > In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being
> > apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. 
> > 
> > These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and
> > historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, 
> > German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. 
> > 
> > In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need
> > special laws to protect it? 
> > 
> > Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime.
> > It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put 
> > the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. 
> > 
> > It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier "facts"
> > regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed 
> > out for popular consumption. 
> > 
> > As for the "un-revisable" six million

RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Volokh, Eugene]

Yes, it would be rude, albeit amply provoked; I'd prefer that
such posts not be posted to the list, either.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and 
> Religious Liberty
> 
> 
> Larry Darby wrote:
> 
> >My post was very much material and relevant to law and religion. I 
> >believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of Judaism or 
> world Jewry 
> >or global endeavors of its adherents.  No matter how often or who 
> >opposes freedom of religion, which includes criticism of 
> Judaism, the 
> >knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.
> >
> >For a USA-First government!
> >
> >Larry
> >  
> >
> Would it be rude of me to suggest that someone stick a 
> dreidel in this 
> guy's mouth to shut him up? Probably. I guess I better not 
> suggest it then.
> 
> Crankily,
> 
> Ed Brayton
> ___
> 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: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty

[Larry Darby]

My post was very much material and relevant to law and religion. I
believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of Judaism or world Jewry or
global endeavors of its adherents.  No matter how often or who opposes
freedom of religion, which includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge
of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.

For a USA-First government!

Larry

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious
Liberty

Folks:  Let me say it again -- please keep posts on-topic, which
is to say pretty closely focused on the law of government and religion.
The original thread had to do with whether Title VII's religious
accommodation provision, or perhaps the Free Exercise Clause or the Free
Speech Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class
posters; that's on-topic.  This post is not on-topic.  Please abide by
the list discussion rules.

The list custodian 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:24 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
> 
> 
> Applying such isolated events (specific) to an entire class 
> (general) is just the sort of logical fallacy that has led to 
> all sorts of distortions in law and public policy during 
> recent decades of "political correctness."  The same sort of 
> manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in 
> regard to the Holocaust Industry.  The Religion of the 
> Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes.  Here's a good
> summary:
> 
> Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties
> 
> CounterThink, Taiwan
> 
> Jan. 24, 2006
> 
> Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment 
> to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete 
> understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were 
> gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. 
> 
> The typical rhetoric goes: "these bigots deny the facts and 
> lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. 
> 
> In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being 
> apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. 
> 
> These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and 
> historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, 
> German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. 
> 
> In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need 
> special laws to protect it? 
> 
> Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. 
> It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put 
> the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. 
> 
> It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier "facts" 
> regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed 
> out for popular consumption. 
> 
> As for the "un-revisable" six million figure, Jews have 
> superstitious reasons pertaining to the number "six" for 
> claiming that six million died. 
> 
> In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, 
> incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews 
> facing death during WWI. 
> 
> Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is 
> that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they 
> could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. 
> 
> Holocaust lore is essential to the precarious legitimacy of 
> the Jewish State. 
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the Nazis blamed the Jews for America's 
> entry into WWI as well as the unjust and punitive Treaty of 
> Versailles which followed. 
> 
> This deliberate mischaracterization of Holocaust revisionism 
> has been spread widely and purposefully by keepers of the 
> Holocaust faith. 
> 
> One reader suggested that we call the search for truth in 
> this matter "Holocaust factualism".
> 
> http://www.counterthink.org/016944.html
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general69/hol.htm
> 
> Larry Darby, Democratic candidate for
> Attorney General of Alabama.
> http://www.larrydarby.com/
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Finkelman
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:00 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
> 
> Rick:
> 
> Maybe the test ought to be which "whin

RE: From the list custodian RE: Alito/The Constitution

[Will Linden]

 Rather, does it mean that he repudiates *sola scriptura*, ascribing equal 
authority to the Sacred Tradition, as conveyed by the Fathers.



At 02:44 PM 1/12/06 -0600, you wrote:

centerpiece of American civil religion.  If I were to rewrite Mr.
Lofton's question, it would be along the lines of, "Does Alito indicate
by this statement that 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?"

sandy


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian RE: Alito/The Constitution

Just a reminder that this list is designed for discussion of the
law of government and religion, not broader debate about constitutional
law or constitutionalism.  Such broader debate may be tremendously
interesting and important -- this list just isn't the place for it.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: 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.
>
___
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.





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/227 - Release Date: 1/11/06


___
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.

From the list custodian RE: Prof. Levinson/Lofton/Alito/Oaths

[Volokh, Eugene]

Sandy makes a good argument for the topicality of this thread,
but I wonder if it might nonetheless be a little too far removed.  There
are certainly lots of possible analogies between religious controversies
and legal controversies; but it seems to me that this list (as opposed
to others, which have a different focus) is at its best when it deals
with the law *of* government and religion, rather than with broader
questions of constitutional interpretation that are pretty far afield
from the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Religious
Test Clause, and so on.

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:33 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: 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.
> 
___
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

[Jlof]

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.

RE: From the list custodian RE: Alito/The Constitution

[Sanford Levinson]

I can see what Eugene is getting at, but it seems to me that one
question raised by John Lofton's comment is the meaning of an "oath."
The oath, after all, is to be faithful to the Constitution, which some
of us argue functions, for better and distinctly for worse, as the
centerpiece of American civil religion.  If I were to rewrite Mr.
Lofton's question, it would be along the lines of, "Does Alito indicate
by this statement that 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?"

sandy


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian RE: Alito/The Constitution

Just a reminder that this list is designed for discussion of the
law of government and religion, not broader debate about constitutional
law or constitutionalism.  Such broader debate may be tremendously
interesting and important -- this list just isn't the place for it.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: 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.
> 
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: Alito/The Constitution

[Volokh, Eugene]

Just a reminder that this list is designed for discussion of the
law of government and religion, not broader debate about constitutional
law or constitutionalism.  Such broader debate may be tremendously
interesting and important -- this list just isn't the place for it.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: 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.
> 
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: Secularization of Christmas

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  I think list discussions will likely be more
enlightening if we set aside "right-wing cant," "left-wing propaganda,"
and either side's "ludicrous" "fantas[ies]."  Among other things, it
seems to me that calmer terminology -- including terminology that
expresses the same substantive points, but in a less harsh way -- is
more likely to promote "tolerance," "inclusiveness," and "mutual
understanding."

The list custodian

> I don't see how any of this right-wing cant about the "war on 
> Christmas" relates to religion and the law, as the "war" by 
> most accounts appears largely nongovernmental.  Apparently, 
> however, that issue has been settled, so I'll add my two cents.
> 
> How sad that the religious right can apparently find nothing 
> more egregious over which to beat its well-worn war drums 
> than sporadic, spiritually generous (although, I'll concede, 
> occasionally bland) efforts to include non-Christians in 
> expressions of goodwill around the winter holiday season 
> (which, of course, predates Christianity).  How can greeting 
> a large, diverse population of customers, readers, or friends 
> with a nonsectarian expression of goodwill possibly offend 
> anyone's faith?
> 
> Part of me wants to attribute this latest misbegotten crusade 
> to the religious right's ludicrous but persistent fantasy 
> that Christians in the United States are some kind of 
> persecuted minority, beaten down by the hob-nailed boot of 
> secularism at every attempt to worship or testify.  My more 
> pessimistic impulse is to validate a fear I've long tried to 
> keep at arm's length -- that the Christianist element in this 
> country actually opposes tolerance, inclusiveness, and mutual 
> understanding among people of different faiths and values.  
> However, this being the holiday season -- and, for me, the 
> Christmas season -- I choose to remain optimistic.  Silly 
> persecution complex it is, then.
___
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.

Further from the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

I am reluctant to allow certain viewpoints on the list and
forbid other viewpoints based on how many people were lynched or
murdered in this country owing to those viewpoints.  (Incidentally,
there have fortunately been relatively few Jews -- not none, but
relatively few -- lynched or murdered in this country because they were
Jewish.)

Eugene


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zionist-Occupied Government


Mark, the difference might be that "Protestant Empire" is pretty vague
and has never been used as a code word for persecution.  I can't recall
any instances where Protestants have been lynched or murdered in this
country in "anti-Protestant crusades" (at least since the Puritans
stopped hanging Quakers in the 1670s)   The persecutin of  Baptists in
Virginia in the 1780s did not lead to killings.  Even in Europe, it has
been at least a 300 years since Protestants were attacked and murdered
for their faith.  Darby's language is a code wordor hatred and bigotry
and is a form of hate speech.  Under our First Amendment Darby has a
constitutional right to be a bigot and a hate monger; he is free to
dress up in a sheet or wear arm bands or both, but that does not mean we
should provide a forum for his hatred and bigotry.  This is Eugene's
list, and he is free to tolerate Darby's hate-mongering if he wishes,
but I do think there is a difference between Darby language and the
examples you offer.

Paul Finkelman

Mark Graber wrote:

I confess to thinking "zionist-occupied government" no more out of
bounds than "Protestant empire" or claims that "America is a Christian
nation."  I confess to think the later two more accurate, but do not
think the first the sort of hate speech that ought to ba banned from the
list.

Mark A. Graber, Zionist, presently out of power.

  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/05 9:38 AM >>>

Paul's query again  raises the question of the List's purposes.  My own
view 
is that  phrases like "Zionist-Occupied Government" and, in Paul's
words, the  
speaker's "anti-Semitic self-promotion" do not belong on this List. I  
recognize and admire Eugene's typical reluctance to censor emails 
posted to the 
List, but I do not see how such expressions have anything to do  with a
scholarly 
exploration of religion and government.
 
That said, perhaps  censoring the speech gives the speaker a 
credibility he  certainly lacks.
 
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.
  


-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[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.

From the list custodian re: viewpoints, wording, fund-raising, and subject matter

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  My general approach to this list has been to allow all
viewpoints, though to insist that the viewpoints be framed in as polite
a way as possible given the nature of those viewpoints.  This includes
anti-Semitism, anti-Protestantism, anti-evangelical-Christianity,
anti-Catholicism, and the like.  It seems to me that we should deal with
those viewpoints either by arguing against them, or by ignoring them, as
may seem more suitable to the occasion and to the offender.  (I
personally am more inclined to ignore Mr. Darby than to pay further
attention to him on this list.)

And while calling America "Zionist-Occupied Government" is
surely a mark of anti-Semitism, it isn't a particularly rude way of
expressing the opinion (however loathsome and foolish the opinion might
be); if we are to maintain the rule that no viewpoints are excluded from
the list, there seems to be no benefit in trying to channel Mr. Darby's
anti-Semitism into other terms.

As to other matters:  Fund-raising for one's political campaign
is indeed not allowed on this list.  Occasional mentions of one's
published work, including explicit or implicit suggestions that one buy
it, are allowed, though it's important to keep them occasional.

General criticisms of alleged Zionist influence on American
government strike me as related to politics and ethnicity rather than to
religion, and are thus off-topic; references that are more closely
connected to the law of government and religion are not off-topic, again
no matter how reprehensible the views may be.  As to Mr. Darby's most
recent post about Zionist influence, I opened the door to some degree of
this in my earlier post criticizing Mr. Darby (a post that I think was
on-topic because it described the character of someone who is a not
insignificant legal player in law-of-government-and-religion debates).
It seems to me that he's entitled to react for a few posts, though after
a while I'll have to return to insisting that the connection of the
arguments to the law of government and religion be stronger.

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.

from the list custodian RE: Swedish Pastor Beats "Hate Crime" Rap

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks, this might be getting a bit meta -- let's try to move
things back to the law of government and religion.  

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:28 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Swedish Pastor Beats "Hate Crime" Rap
> 
> 
> I don't accept your premises.  I said that sometimes the 
> message and the messenger are essentially the same.  My 
> position, given that, is entirely logical.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Brayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Swedish Pastor Beats "Hate Crime" Rap
> 
> Newsom Michael wrote:
> 
> >I agree that there is a standard.  I just don't find it in the 
> >Declaration.  I find the hypocrisy of Jefferson just too much to 
> >stomach.  I can't take him seriously.  And I don't.  Sometimes the 
> >messenger is the message.  I'll leave it at that.
> >
> 
> I find this highly illogical. Let's say you have Principle X. It is a 
> principle advocated and accepted by two people, Person A and 
> Person B. 
> Person A advocates Principle X, but applies it in an inconsistent and 
> even hypocritical manner. Person B advocates Principle X, but does so 
> consistently, always putting it into practice whenever reason demands 
> it. By your reasoning, it seems that you would say that if 
> someone knows
> 
> Person A, then Principle X is false, while if someone knows Person B, 
> then Principle X is true. But that's not logically tenable. 
> Principle X 
> is either true or false, regardless of whether someone who 
> advocates it 
> follows it consistently or not, and certainly regardless of whether 
> someone who's been dead for 180 years followed it consistently or not.
> 
> More importantly, as Frank Beckwith pointed out, you cannot make the 
> argument that failing to follow Principle X consistently is wrong 
> without first accepting that Principle X is valid.You cannot 
> logically 
> demand that Principle X be followed consistently unless you, 
> wittingly 
> or unwittingly, endorse Principle X as true.
> 
> Ed Brayton
> ___
> 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: From the list custodian RE: Discrimination

[Brad M Pardee]

Eugene wrote on 11/21/2005 11:18:15 AM:

> For instance, does it mean "Congress shall make no law totally
> prohibiting all religion, so that no religion may be practiced"?
 If so,
> Congress could outlaw Catholicism, on the theory that it's not
> prohibiting religion generally, only one religion.

For those who would see Eugene's hypotethical
example as something that would never happen, this is, in fact, the "logic"
used by the the Fifth Circuit in the case of Xiaodong Li, whose request
for asylum was inexplicably opposed by the US Attorney General's office.

http://www.usaforunhcr.org/usaforunhcr/archives.cfm?ID=3298&catID=2)

According to the article, the Circuit felt
there was no persecution involved "[b]ecause the Chinese government
tolerates Christianity, so long as it's practiced in a registered group".
 For this, the Circuit (as well as the the Board of Immigration Appeals
and the Dept. of Homeland Security) was roundly, and rightly, excoriated.
 If the Free Exercise clause was interpreted according to the above
hypothetical, though, it would not only vindicate the Circuit Court but
it would establish the same freedomless standard for U.S. citizens.

Thankfully, the Dept. of Homeland Security
has withdrawn its appeal, and the Fifth Circuit has vacated its decision.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/012/8.20.html

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

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

From the list custodian RE: Discrimination

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  We're all smart people here.  Most of us have spent many years
working with the law of government and religion.  Few of us have real
difficulty grasping concepts.  We may disagree with others'
interpretation of those concepts, of course, but that's a different
matter.

It's certainly quite legitimate to focus closely on the particular words
used in the Constitution (though one should also recognize that legal
drafting isn't always perfectly precise, even in the hands of very smart
people).  But simply saying that the Free Exercise Clause uses the word
"prohibit" rather than "abridge" doesn't tell us that much, because
"prohibit" has many possible meanings.  

For instance, does it mean "Congress shall make no law totally
prohibiting all religion, so that no religion may be practiced"?  If so,
Congress could outlaw Catholicism, on the theory that it's not
prohibiting religion generally, only one religion.  "Congress shall make
no law totally prohibit all exercise of a particular religion"?  If so,
Congress could outlaw conducting the Catholic Mass -- singling out
Catholic practice for special burden, precisely because of its
Catholicism -- on the theory that Catholics would still remain free to
pray privately, baptize babies, and practice religion in other ways
besides conducting the Mass.  Does it mean "Congress shall make no law
prohibiting any particular exercise of religion, if it singles out the
exercise for prohibition because of its religiosity"?  That would be
much like the current interpretation of the provision, see Lukumi
Babalu, and I actually largely agree with it -- but surely it's not
because the word "prohibit" somehow unambiguously dictates this
interpretation.  (Plus, even under this interpretation, what if Congress
puts a $1000 tax on each Mass?  Not a "prohibition," but is it still an
unconstitutional discriminatory burden?)

Finally, the word "prohibit" doesn't tell us what Mr. Garman was
suggesting it tells us, which is that the Clause applies only to beliefs
and not actions; that's just not something the "abridge" / "prohibit"
distinction goes to.

Let me therefore suggest three thoughts that might be helpful to list
discussions:

(1)  Please don't suggest that people's problem is that they "have
difficulty grasping [a] concept."  It's probably not accurate, and it's
in any event rude.  Assume that others on the list grasp concepts just
fine, even if they disagree with your concepts.

(2)  If lots of seemingly smart people disagree with your position, it's
a fair bet that repeating aspects of it, saying that the Framers knew
what they were talking about, and suggesting that your position is
obvious is not going to persuade people.  Again, you should definitely
argue in favor of your perspective -- but you should recognize that the
perspective really isn't that obviously correct.

(3)  If you think that your position is dictated by the text, think
again -- ask yourself whether there are other ways that the text might
be plausibly interpreted.  Perhaps you can persuade people that your
interpretation is the better one.  But you're highly unlikely to be able
to do that simply by asserting that it's the only plausible one --
you're much likelier to prevail if you confront the other
interpretations and explain why they're mistaken.

The list custodian
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:09 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Discrimination


I think Mr. Garman is trying to assist those who are having difficulty
grasping the concept that government may abridge, but not prohibit, the
exercise of religion.
 
James Madison and Company did not waste words.
 
Larry Darby
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:46 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Discrimination
 
If "prohibiting" so clearly meant "totally," Gene would not have to
insert "totally" into the sentence everytime he quotes it and tries to
explain it.
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
   512-232-1341 (phone)
   512-471-6988 (fax)
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene Garman
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Steve,

Government can restrict people from putting religion or nonreligion
beliefs into action. No discrimination involved. Specific religion and
nonreligion actions can be prohibited or abridged by the laws of
society. The question is not under what circumstances government can do
so. Government can do so, under any circumstance, religion or no
religion. In respect to actions, the Free Exercise Commandment does not
assert any exception to the rule of law. The First Amendment merely
commands that "relig

RE: From the list custodian

[Newsom Michael]

Eugene brackets too much, it seems to me.  The law of government and
religion may well be shaped by the influence -- malign or benign -- of
particular religions.  Surely one ought to be able to discuss that
influence and how it might shape the law.

It is too bad that such discussions generate some heat, but at least
they provide some of us with some insight into where the law has been
and where it might be heading.

Civility is a virtue.  But it is not the sole relevant virtue.   

-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: From the list custodian

I did read those paragraphs, and I stick by my analysis.  I'll
say it again -- if you think, as Prof. Finkelman does, that some
religion (or religion generally, or atheism generally) has been a malign
influence on the nation, you are surely quite entitled to think that and
to say that in a debate about religion.  But I'd rather that on this
list, we stuck to things that were more likely to shed more light than
heat on the list topic, which is the law of government and religion.

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:28 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene
> Subject: RE: From the list custodian
> 
> 
> Eugene:  You obviously did not read the first two paragraphs 
> of the post if that is all you saw!
> 
> Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Well, all I saw was what the post said.  The post 
> listed bad things 
> > that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly
> > like a slam at Christianity.  It strikes me as very likely
> > that many
> > people would have interpreted it this way.  I would have
> > thought that
> > the author would have understood that it would be interpreted
> > this way.
> > I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for
> > "here's
> > what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong
> > with your
> > religion," and I see lots of downside.
> > 
> > Eugene
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Paul
> > > Finkelman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > > Subject: Re: From the list custodian
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Eugene:
> > > 
> > > My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course,
> > and
> > > reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a
> > > viewpoint and to 
> > > ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. 
> > 
> > > The fact is
> > > this:  a "History of the Influence of Christianity in 
> > > American history" 
> > > taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely
> > 
> > > teach many
> > > of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres 
> > > would teach a 
> > > number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two
> > great
> > > awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery
> > 
> > > movement and
> > > the civil rights movement.
> > > 
> > > If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to
> > 
> > > explore the
> > > issue.
> > > 
> > > Paul Finkelman
> > > 
> > > Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> > > > Folks:  I'm sure that people on this list would be
> > able
> > > to compile
> > > > lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes;
> > 
> > > of Muslims;
> > > > of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more.  They
> > > would also be
> > > > able to compile lists of the good things that each of
> > those
> > > groups have
> > > > done.  Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or
> > certain
> > > > denominations in particular, are on balance malign or
> > > benign influences
> > > > on the nation is a topic that has been debated for
> > > centuries, and has
> > > > filled volumes.  It can easily fill days and days of list
> > 
> > > discussion,
> > > > too, should people choose to embark on it.
> > > >  
> > > > But do we really think that posting such lists -- no
> >

RE: From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

I did read those paragraphs, and I stick by my analysis.  I'll
say it again -- if you think, as Prof. Finkelman does, that some
religion (or religion generally, or atheism generally) has been a malign
influence on the nation, you are surely quite entitled to think that and
to say that in a debate about religion.  But I'd rather that on this
list, we stuck to things that were more likely to shed more light than
heat on the list topic, which is the law of government and religion.

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:28 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene
> Subject: RE: From the list custodian
> 
> 
> Eugene:  You obviously did not read the first two paragraphs 
> of the post if that is all you saw!
> 
> Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Well, all I saw was what the post said.  The post 
> listed bad things 
> > that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly
> > like a slam at Christianity.  It strikes me as very likely
> > that many
> > people would have interpreted it this way.  I would have
> > thought that
> > the author would have understood that it would be interpreted
> > this way.
> > I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for
> > "here's
> > what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong
> > with your
> > religion," and I see lots of downside.
> > 
> > Eugene
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Paul
> > > Finkelman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > > Subject: Re: From the list custodian
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Eugene:
> > > 
> > > My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course,
> > and
> > > reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a
> > > viewpoint and to 
> > > ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. 
> > 
> > > The fact is
> > > this:  a "History of the Influence of Christianity in 
> > > American history" 
> > > taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely
> > 
> > > teach many
> > > of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres 
> > > would teach a 
> > > number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two
> > great
> > > awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery
> > 
> > > movement and
> > > the civil rights movement.
> > > 
> > > If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to
> > 
> > > explore the
> > > issue.
> > > 
> > > Paul Finkelman
> > > 
> > > Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> > > > Folks:  I'm sure that people on this list would be
> > able
> > > to compile
> > > > lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes;
> > 
> > > of Muslims;
> > > > of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more.  They
> > > would also be
> > > > able to compile lists of the good things that each of
> > those
> > > groups have
> > > > done.  Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or
> > certain
> > > > denominations in particular, are on balance malign or
> > > benign influences
> > > > on the nation is a topic that has been debated for
> > > centuries, and has
> > > > filled volumes.  It can easily fill days and days of list
> > 
> > > discussion,
> > > > too, should people choose to embark on it.
> > > >  
> > > > But do we really think that posting such lists -- no
> > matter how
> > > > much
> > > > the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to
> > thoughtful,
> > > > reasoned list discussion of the law of government and
> > religion?
> > > >  
> > > > The list custodian
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Rick:
> > > > 
> > > > I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such
> > 
> > > as "History of
> > > > Christianity"; "Renais

RE: From the list custodian

[paul-finkelman]

Eugene:  You obviously did not read the first two paragraphs of the post if 
that is all you saw!

Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>   Well, all I saw was what the post said.  The post listed bad
> things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty
> clearly
> like a slam at Christianity.  It strikes me as very likely
> that many
> people would have interpreted it this way.  I would have
> thought that
> the author would have understood that it would be interpreted
> this way.
> I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for
> "here's
> what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong
> with your
> religion," and I see lots of downside.
> 
>   Eugene
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Paul 
> > Finkelman
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: Re: From the list custodian
> > 
> > 
> > Eugene:
> > 
> > My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course,
> and 
> > reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a 
> > viewpoint and to 
> > ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. 
> 
> > The fact is 
> > this:  a "History of the Influence of Christianity in 
> > American history" 
> > taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely
> 
> > teach many 
> > of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres 
> > would teach a 
> > number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two
> great 
> > awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery
> 
> > movement and 
> > the civil rights movement.
> > 
> > If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to
> 
> > explore the 
> > issue.
> > 
> > Paul Finkelman
> > 
> > Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> > > Folks:  I'm sure that people on this list would be
> able 
> > to compile
> > > lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes;
> 
> > of Muslims; 
> > > of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more.  They 
> > would also be 
> > > able to compile lists of the good things that each of
> those 
> > groups have 
> > > done.  Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or
> certain 
> > > denominations in particular, are on balance malign or 
> > benign influences 
> > > on the nation is a topic that has been debated for 
> > centuries, and has 
> > > filled volumes.  It can easily fill days and days of list
> 
> > discussion, 
> > > too, should people choose to embark on it.
> > >  
> > > But do we really think that posting such lists -- no
> matter how 
> > > much
> > > the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to
> thoughtful, 
> > > reasoned list discussion of the law of government and
> religion?
> > >  
> > > The list custodian
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Dear Rick:
> > > 
> > > I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such
> 
> > as "History of
> > > Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a 
> > number of early
> > > modern
> > > European courses and late antiquity courses that
> deal almost
> > > entirely
> > > with the Church and Church history. There are 
> > probably courses
> > > on the
> > > Bible taught in various departments at UC as they
> 
> > are in most
> > > universities. Moreover, the history of religion 
> > pops up all over
> > > the
> > > place. When I used to teach US Survery in a
> history 
> > department I
> > > always
> > > spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned
> 
> > a book about
> > > them.
> > > My discussion of 19th century reform movements 
> > included a good
> > > deal on
> > > the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on
> 
> > the 1st great
> > > awkening in a survey course. Every colonial
> history course I
> > > ever took
> > > (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In
> anythin

RE: From the list custodian

[Greg Magarian]

A discussion about how a public educational system may / should evaluate
religious' schools' treatments of religious topics fairly opens up
substantive debate about what constitutes a sufficiently critical
treatment of religious topics.  Paul Finkelman's post dramatized the
ample space available for critical discourse about the dominant religion
in American life, in the face of arguments that a public educational
system discriminates if it refuses to credit uncritical courses about
religion.  As one reader (a Christian one, if that's a requirement for
standing in this dispute), I think Professor Finkelman's statment is
more probative than prejudicial.

  Speaking as one reader (a Christian one, for whatever that's worth),
I'm not sure a discussion of how a public educational system should
address sectarian schools' treatments of religious topics can avoid
arguments about whether one kind of system or the other portrays a given
religion or religions too critically or not critically enough. 

Gregory P. Magarian
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
299 N. Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
(610) 519-7652

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/6/2005 4:50:20 PM >>>
Well, all I saw was what the post said.  The post listed bad
things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly
like a slam at Christianity.  It strikes me as very likely that many
people would have interpreted it this way.  I would have thought that
the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this
way.
I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for "here's
what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your
religion," and I see lots of downside.

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Finkelman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: From the list custodian
> 
> 
> Eugene:
> 
> My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and 
> reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a 
> viewpoint and to 
> ignore other information it undermines academic integrity.  
> The fact is 
> this:  a "History of the Influence of Christianity in 
> American history" 
> taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely 
> teach many 
> of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres 
> would teach a 
> number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great 
> awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery 
> movement and 
> the civil rights movement.
> 
> If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to 
> explore the 
> issue.
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> 
> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> > Folks:  I'm sure that people on this list would be able 
> to compile
> > lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; 
> of Muslims; 
> > of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more.  They 
> would also be 
> > able to compile lists of the good things that each of those 
> groups have 
> > done.  Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain 
> > denominations in particular, are on balance malign or 
> benign influences 
> > on the nation is a topic that has been debated for 
> centuries, and has 
> > filled volumes.  It can easily fill days and days of list 
> discussion, 
> > too, should people choose to embark on it.
> >  
> > But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how

> > much
> > the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful,

> > reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion?
> >  
> > The list custodian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Rick:
> > 
> > I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such 
> as "History of
> > Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a 
> number of early
> > modern
> > European courses and late antiquity courses that deal
almost
> > entirely
> > with the Church and Church history. There are 
> probably courses
> > on the
> > Bible taught in various departments at UC as they 
> are in most
> > universities. Moreover, the history of religion 
> pops up all over
> > the
> > place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history 
> department I
> > always
> > spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned 
> a bo

RE: From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Well, all I saw was what the post said.  The post listed bad
things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly
like a slam at Christianity.  It strikes me as very likely that many
people would have interpreted it this way.  I would have thought that
the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this way.
I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for "here's
what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your
religion," and I see lots of downside.

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Finkelman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: From the list custodian
> 
> 
> Eugene:
> 
> My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and 
> reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a 
> viewpoint and to 
> ignore other information it undermines academic integrity.  
> The fact is 
> this:  a "History of the Influence of Christianity in 
> American history" 
> taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely 
> teach many 
> of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres 
> would teach a 
> number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great 
> awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery 
> movement and 
> the civil rights movement.
> 
> If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to 
> explore the 
> issue.
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> 
> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> > Folks:  I'm sure that people on this list would be able 
> to compile
> > lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; 
> of Muslims; 
> > of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more.  They 
> would also be 
> > able to compile lists of the good things that each of those 
> groups have 
> > done.  Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain 
> > denominations in particular, are on balance malign or 
> benign influences 
> > on the nation is a topic that has been debated for 
> centuries, and has 
> > filled volumes.  It can easily fill days and days of list 
> discussion, 
> > too, should people choose to embark on it.
> >  
> > But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how 
> > much
> > the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, 
> > reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion?
> >  
> > The list custodian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Rick:
> > 
> > I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such 
> as "History of
> > Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a 
> number of early
> > modern
> > European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost
> > entirely
> > with the Church and Church history. There are 
> probably courses
> > on the
> > Bible taught in various departments at UC as they 
> are in most
> > universities. Moreover, the history of religion 
> pops up all over
> > the
> > place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history 
> department I
> > always
> > spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned 
> a book about
> > them.
> > My discussion of 19th century reform movements 
> included a good
> > deal on
> > the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on 
> the 1st great
> > awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I
> > ever took
> > (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything,
> > colonialists
> > probably spend too much time on the Puritans.
> > 
> > Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of 
> the courses
> > below
> > would have content about Christians and 
> Christianity, including
> > "Storytelling," "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in 
> Literature,"
> > (lots
> > of interesting religious issues there, from the 
> problem of guilt to
> > fundamentalist hombophobia) "Jewish History," (had 
> to teach it
> > without
> > discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish 
> History (same
> > comment); Issues in African History (from 
> Missionaries

RE: From the list custodian

[Scarberry, Mark]

I think Paul is wrong. Theologically conservative Protestant Christians are
concerned about the abuses of religion. The ones who have set up schools are
mostly in the tradition of the dissenters (like Roger Williams) who were the
subject of religious persecution. It is an unfortunate stereotype to treat
them as if they would not look seriously at such issues. 

To the extent that the UC wants courses to provide a breadth of viewpoints,
you'd think there might be concerns about some of the courses the UC accepts
(according to the complaint). Do you suppose the UC checked the syllabus of
the Raza Studies course to see whether it is taught from a narrow point of
view? Or to see whether Milton's Comus or other works sympathetic to
traditional sexual morality are in the list of readings for the Gender,
Sexuality, and Identity in Literature course? Perhaps the UC is consistent
in its concerns, but I'd think it would have been big news if the UC had
questioned the quality of one of these courses and demanded a syllabus.
 
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
___
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

[JMHACLJ]

In a message dated 9/6/2005 3:41:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point 
  was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when 
  people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other 
  information it undermines academic integrity.  The fact is 
  this:  a "History of the Influence of Christianity in American 
  history" taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely 
  teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would 
  teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great 
  awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and 
  the civil rights movement.If Rick wants to play the list game, I 
  think it only fair to explore the issue.

I wonder.
 
Several Christian denominations, for example, have engaged in close 
self-examination and repentance for their role in some of the things listed; 
justification of slavery, oppression of First Peoples, etc.  Paul, did you 
derive your course topics from experience with Christian schools, or from your 
expectations of what you would find?  Rick, it seems to me, wasn't playing 
a "list game," although he can speak for himself on this point; I took his 
listing of approved courses as a shorthand indication of how likely it was that 
a leftward liberal, non-western-tradition valuing decision-making body can 
engage in what by titles only seems to be a highly subjective and highly 
narrowly focused search for overly narrowly focused studies.
 
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.

Re: From the list custodian

[Paul Finkelman]

Eugene:

My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and 
reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to 
ignore other information it undermines academic integrity.  The fact is 
this:  a "History of the Influence of Christianity in American history" 
taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many 
of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a 
number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great 
awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and 
the civil rights movement.


If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the 
issue.


Paul Finkelman

Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Folks:  I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile 
lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; 
of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more.  They would also be 
able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have 
done.  Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain 
denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences 
on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has 
filled volumes.  It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, 
too, should people choose to embark on it.
 
But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much 
the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, 
reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion?
 
The list custodian




Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dear Rick:

I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as "History of
Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a number of early
modern
European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost
entirely
with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses
on the
Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most
universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over
the
place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I
always
spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about
them.
My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good
deal on
the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great
awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I
ever took
(or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything,
colonialists
probably spend too much time on the Puritans.

Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses
below
would have content about Christians and Christianity, including
"Storytelling," "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature,"
(lots
of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to
fundamentalist hombophobia) "Jewish History," (had to teach it
without
discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same
comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop
Tutu it
will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to
discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and
events.

I think a course on the "Influence of Christianity in the US"
would be
interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and
readings on the following (in no particular order):

The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and
hatred;
Christian "identity" movements in the last 25 years
Father Coughlin's antisemitism
The hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in Boston
The use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slavery
The use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to
slavery
Ownership of slaves by churches
The utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the
take a
strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriages
The persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph Smith
The death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in
colonial
Maryland because he denied the divinity of Christ
The whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the
Revolutionary period.
The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent
periods) by
prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools
The forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on
Catholics in the 19th century
The a! ttacks on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also
attack on John
F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic.
The strong stand against int

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Title: Message



    Folks:  I'm sure that 
people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists 
and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and 
more.  They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that 
each of those groups have done.  Whether religion (or irreligion) 
generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or 
benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, 
and has filled volumes.  It can easily fill days and days of list 
discussion, too, should people choose to embark on 
it.
 
But 
do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much the post 
may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, reasoned list 
discussion of the law of government and religion?
 
    The list 
custodian

  
  Paul 
  Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Dear 
Rick:I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as "History 
of Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a number of early modern 
European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely 
with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the 
Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most 
universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the 
place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always 
spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. 
My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on 
the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great 
awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took 
(or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists 
probably spend too much time on the Puritans.Furthermore, I 
would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have 
content about Christians and Christianity, including "Storytelling," 
"Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature," (lots of interesting 
religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist 
hombophobia) "Jewish History," (had to teach it without discussing 
Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues 
in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); 
Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity 
and its relationship to other faiths and events.I think a course on 
the "Influence of Christianity in the US" would be interesting and 
certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the 
following (in no particular order):The KKK (and the use of the Cross 
as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; Christian "identity" movements in 
the last 25 yearsFather Coughlin's antisemitismThe hanging of 
witches in Salem and Quakers in BostonThe use of Christian theology to 
defend (as well as attack) slaveryThe use of conversion of slaves to 
help prevent resistance to slaveryOwnership of slaves by churchesThe 
utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a 
strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriagesThe persecution 
of Mormons and the murder of Joseph SmithThe death penalty (fortunately 
reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial Maryland because he denied the 
divinity of ChristThe whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in 
Virginia in the Revolutionary period.The intellectual intolerance of 
the 1920s (and more recent periods) by prohibiting the teaching of 
evolution in the public schoolsThe forced reading of Protestant version 
of the Bible imposed on Catholics in the 19th centuryThe a! ttacks 
on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John F. Kennedy) 
because they were Catholic.The strong stand against integration taken by 
virtually ever southern Christian minister in the 1950s and early 
1960s.The influence of religious groups in undermining Indian culture 
and religion and forcing Indian children not to learn their own 
language.The use of Protestant theology (and the influence of Christian 
leaders) to justify wars against Indians, particularly in the colonial 
period.Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach 
it.Paul Finkelman-- Paul FinkelmanChapman Distinguished 
ProfessorUniversity of Tulsa College of Law3120 East 4th 
PlaceTulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499918-631-3706 
(office)918-631-2194 
(fax)[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rick Duncan wrote:> 
If you haven't read the complaint > > in the 
Association of Christian Schools v. UC case, I encourage you to > do 
so. Although UC denied approval to courses concerning> 
"Christianity's Influence on American History" and "Christianity and 
> Morality in American Literature" as being too narrow and not 
consistent > "with knowledge generally

RE: From the list custodian

[Newsom Michael]

Title: Message









I don’t see how Henderson’s post is
appropriate, under the circumstances.  This list is not comprised of
disembodied brains, devoted to nothing more than abstract formalist acontextual
reasoning, even if some might appear to think so.  Frances has been a solid
contributor to this list.  I hope that she stays on the list, and I hope
that she and others continue to remind us of the limits of abstract formalist acontextual
reasoning, something that she does rather well, I might add.

 

-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005
5:28 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian

 



   
Folks:  I'm willing to cut people slack in times of obvious and
understandable emotional upset, but it's still important to note that
posts such as those below, though forgivable under the circumstances, are
quite inappropriate.  You may have whatever views you want of fellow
list members.  But there is no reason to personally insult them on the
list.  If you're so angry that you feel you have to post something, wait
until the anger goes away, and then ask whether you still want to post it.





 





    Jim used an admittedly
tragic event -- an event that he himself described as tragic -- as a means of
framing a legal question and a legal argument.  This is pretty much what
academic lawyers and legal academics do; think back to your crim law class. 
The tragedy of this event, of course, is unusually fresh.  Perhaps some
would prefer not to use it as grist for the legal argument mill right
now.  On the other hand, others might find that the freshness of the event
makes it especially valuable.  Nothing in Jim's post remotely
justifies even a harsh impersonal denunciation, much less personal insult.





 





    Again, I realize that
under these circumstances may say things that they wouldn't normally say; I
therefore don't want to fault the author of the post below too much.  But
I do want to make clear that such posts ought not be posted.





 





    The list custodian





 





 





-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005
10:11 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Floodwaters and
Undermined Walls





Jim
Henderson, you are beyond disgusting.  People are dying. They were gasping
out their last breaths or cradling a loved one--a child, a mother or father--in
distress as you wrote your post. Save your idelogical arguments for another
time. I'm sorry, Eugene, but this is too much so don't bother to scold/reprove.
Perhaps I no longer want to be part of this listserv when one of its members
demonstrates such cruel indifference to human grief and suffering. 

Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698









___
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.

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Title: Message



    Folks:  I'm willing to cut people slack in 
times of obvious and understandable emotional upset, but it's still 
important to note that posts such as those below, though forgivable under 
the circumstances, are quite inappropriate.  You may have whatever 
views you want of fellow list members.  But there is no reason to 
personally insult them on the list.  If you're so angry that you feel you 
have to post something, wait until the anger goes away, and then ask whether you 
still want to post it.
 
    Jim used an admittedly tragic event -- an event that he himself 
described as tragic -- as a means of framing a legal question and a legal 
argument.  This is pretty much what academic lawyers and legal academics 
do; think back to your crim law class.  The tragedy of this event, of 
course, is unusually fresh.  Perhaps some would prefer not to use it as 
grist for the legal argument mill right now.  On the other hand, others 
might find that the freshness of the event makes it especially 
valuable.  Nothing in Jim's post remotely justifies even a 
harsh impersonal denunciation, much less personal 
insult.
 
    Again, I realize that under these circumstances may say things 
that they wouldn't normally say; I therefore don't want to fault the author of 
the post below too much.  But I do want to make clear that such posts ought 
not be posted.
 
    The list custodian
 
 

-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 
10:11 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: 
Floodwaters and Undermined Walls
Jim Henderson, you are beyond disgusting.  People are dying. 
  They were gasping out their last breaths or cradling a loved one--a child, a 
  mother or father--in distress as you wrote your post. Save your idelogical 
  arguments for another time. I'm sorry, Eugene, but this is too much so don't 
  bother to scold/reprove. Perhaps I no longer want to be part of this listserv 
  when one of its members demonstrates such cruel indifference to human grief 
  and suffering. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.Associate 
  ProfessorDepartment of Educational LeadershipValdosta State 
  UniversityValdosta, GA 31698 
___
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.

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Title: Message



    Folks:  This is a list that's aimed at 
academic legal discussion.  For very good reasons, the rules of academic 
legal discussion are generally that you focus on facts and arguments, not on the 
supposed failings of the other person.  This means, among other 
things:
 
    1.  You don't publicly challenge another participant's 
supposed lack of professional competence, experience, or education.  
(Imagine, for instance, that you were a lawprof who does legal history at a 
history conference; if people disagreed with you, would it be polite for them to 
publicly berate you for not having a history Ph.D.?)  If you think the 
person's arguments are unsound, point out the unsoundness, and let your points 
speak for themselves.  If indeed the other person is incompetent (I suspect 
most of the time that turns out not to be so), let readers infer that, rather 
than stating it expressly.
 
    2.  You don't publicly call a participant or his arguments 
dishonest.  Assume they're being quite sincere, even if they've fallen into 
error.  Again, point out the mistakes, and let your points speak for 
themselves.  If indeed the other person is being dishonest rather than 
mistaken (I suspect most of the time that turns out not to be so), let readers 
infer that, rather than stating it expressly.
 
    3.  It doesn't matter if you were provoked by the other 
person's violations of these rules, or of other rules -- such provocation 
doesn't justify your own violations.
 
    There are lots of good reasons for these rules:  They're more 
fair.  They're more likely to yield valuable discussion.  They keep 
discussions pleasant, and avoid alienating listeners.  But in any event, 
please abide by these rules.  If you feel that they are too constricting, 
I'm sure you can find lots of other Internet places that have looser rules 
(though my sense is that they're also less likely to have useful discussions, 
perhaps in part precisely because they have the looser 
rules).
 
    The list custodian
   
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Ed BraytonSent: Monday, August 29, 2005 8:49 
AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 
Re: UC system sued
Rick 
  Duncan wrote: 
  
Ed; I am simply not going to respond any further to your lay 
person's analysis of the law. But let me say this: it should have 
been clear to any rational reader that when I said 
"evangelical Christians" ought to be up in arms about a 
state university system that excludes students from "Christian schools" that 
I was referring to evangelical Christian schools not Catholic 
schools or schools from other religious traditions.That 
  still isn't an accurate representation of the facts. They do not reject anyone 
  who goes to an evangelical Christian school. They refuse to give credit for a 
  few specific classes that do not meet their standards. Some evangelical 
  schools may offer those classes, and if so their students will not be credited 
  with those classes when applying for admission. They may still take other 
  approved courses to make up for it, either at their school or at a community 
  college. Either way, it is still absolutely false to claim that UC just 
  rejects students from evangelical Christian schools.
  
I did not misrepresent the facts, and I resent your tendentious 
lectures. Your tendentious lectures about acience are bad enough, 
but those on the law are beyond the pale.And I 
  resent your pompous and irrational attempt to pull rank when the issue here 
  has nothing to do with the law but with your simple misrepresentation of the 
  facts. For crying out loud, you're even misrepresenting my statements about 
  your misrepresentations, which are not about the law but about the basic facts 
  of the case. One does not need to be an attorney to point out that the UC is 
  not just denying admission to those who go to Christian schools, or even to 
  evangelical Christian schools. The fact that you continue to repeat the same 
  false claim after having it disproven only shows the absurdity of your attempt 
  to pull rank. Since your possession of a law degree hasn't aided your honesty 
  any, my lack of such certainly cannot be counted as a demerit in this 
  discussion.
  
May I suggest that you apply to law school, and if your academic record 
is sufficiently good, you may be accepted as a 1L. Then, if you can do the 
work, you may get a J.D. Then you can do the work of a constitutional 
lawyer for awhile. Finally, you may be qualified to participate on First 
Amendment discussions on this list. May I suggest 
  that you step down from the pedestal on which you have placed yourself. I'm 
  not sure it can bear the weight of your pomposity or your inflated ego. 
  Ed Brayton
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, 

From the list custodian RE: Mean hoax (these things happen too often)

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks -- I understand how we got here from the law of government
and religion, but I'm pretty sure that we're now very far removed from
the law of government and religion.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Francis Beckwith
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Mean hoax (these things happen too often)
> 
> 
> Let's not forget this one: "Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried 
> Chicken fame left a will specifying that 10% of KFC's profits 
> be given to the Ku Klux Klan."  Read about it here: 
> http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/sanders.asp
> 
> On 8/25/05 2:16 AM, "Will Linden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Remember the hooraw about the purported "memo" supposedly "leaked" 
> > from Vice-President Agnew's office about Nixon's plans to 
> cancel the 
> > election and repeal the Bill of Rights?
> > How often have you seen the "Hitler law and order 
> speech" fabrication?
> > How many times have you received forwarded versions of the 
> > "petition to prevent World War III" and other such? (Note 
> snopes.com's 
> > remarks on
> > "slacktivism".)
> > 
> >   Was this because the secular left is "particularly 
> susceptible" to 
> > such disinformation?
> > 
> >   (Bracing for cries of "that was DIFFERENT!")
> > 
> > At 06:43 PM 8/24/05 -0500, you wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> "Particularly susceptible"?  Is this like when the Washington Post 
> >> said that followers of the religious right are "largely poor, 
> >> uneducated, and easy to command"?  The FACT is that there 
> are a ton 
> >> of e-mail hoaxes out there.  I get them sent to me.  
> Things like this 
> >> as well as warnings about a tax on e-mail or offers from Microsoft 
> >> that will earn you money for everyone you forward an 
> e-mail to, etc.  
> >> Not all (or even most) of the hoaxes I get have anything 
> to do with 
> >> the "Christian nation".  Rather than it being about the 
> general low 
> >> intellect of conservative Christians that you seem to be 
> inferring, 
> >> it's about people IN GENERAL not checking chain e-mails at 
> Snopes or 
> >> similar sites.  People get e-mails from friends and family 
> and assume 
> >> the information is correct.  But that is by no means 
> unique to "the 
> >> rank and file of the religious right".  Could it be your response 
> >> says more about the stereotypes you are holding than about 
> who does 
> >> or doesn't forward chain e-mails without checking them out?
> >> 
> >> Brad Pardee
> >> 
> >> Ed Brayton wrote:
> >> This is an old hoax. I've had it forwarded to me probably a dozen 
> >> times over the last few years and even took the time to 
> debunk it on 
> >> my blog, as have many others. For some reason, the rank 
> and file of 
> >> the religious right seem particularly susceptible to this sort of 
> >> nonsense and they tend to forward them on with all the appropriate 
> >> howls of outrage to all of their friends and family. There 
> are also 
> >> probably a dozen different variations of the "Christian 
> Nation" email 
> >> that is forwarded among the same people, complete with a 
> dozen or so 
> >> fake quotations allegedly from the founding fathers and lots of 
> >> historical ignorance. 
> ___
> >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >> 
> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot 
> be viewed as 
> >> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are 
> >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> >> (rightly or
> >> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >> 
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 
> >> 8/24/05
> > 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  No matter how much one thinks that the other side's
arguments are "pap and drivel," there's no benefit -- to one's own
persuasiveness or to the level of list discourse -- in descending to
insults like that, even when the insults are ostensibly used to describe
arguments rather than particular posters.

The list custodian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01 PM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Ask Pascal about the role of faith in inspiring reason.  Ask Newton.  
> For that matter, ask Einstein.
> 
> It is nothing but pap and drivel that can be found in the 
> mischaracterization that those who find design in nature are 
> seeking to 
> drive high school students away from the natural sciences.  
> Now if you 
> had said the unnatural ones, of course, that is another 
> matter entirely.
> 
> 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.

Re: From the list custodian re: evolution vs. intelligent design

[Francis Beckwith]

Figures I would be eliminated through selection. :-)  No problem with
Eugene. I'm done. 

Frank

On 8/3/05 3:06 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This thread has been quite interesting; but my tentative sense
> is that (1) it has gone on for quite a while, (2) it seems to be
> repeating itself a bit, and (3) online discussions on this topic have
> been known to go on for a very long time.  Might it be good to wind
> things down?  Many thanks,
> 
> The list custodian
> ___
> 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: From the list custodian re: evolution vs. intelligent design

[Ed Brayton]

Volokh, Eugene wrote:


This thread has been quite interesting; but my tentative sense
is that (1) it has gone on for quite a while, (2) it seems to be
repeating itself a bit, and (3) online discussions on this topic have
been known to go on for a very long time.  



As far as I know, this is the first time that Frank or I have ever 
debated this subject at all.




Ed Brayton


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05

___
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.

From the list custodian re: evolution vs. intelligent design

[Volokh, Eugene]

This thread has been quite interesting; but my tentative sense
is that (1) it has gone on for quite a while, (2) it seems to be
repeating itself a bit, and (3) online discussions on this topic have
been known to go on for a very long time.  Might it be good to wind
things down?  Many thanks,

The list custodian
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: Elective Bible Classes

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  Please keep things as calm as possible here.  People
will sometimes misspell others' names (as Eugene Volokh, I can assure
you of that).  People will write responses and not tell the responded-to
party about it.  (It's not clear to me that there is a social norm about
whether such notification is required, but even if there is, sometimes
people will slip up.)  People will say things about supporters or
opponents of evolution that might be taken the wrong way.  The more we
ignore petty slights like that, at least on-list, and stick with the
substance, the happier people will be in the long run, and the more
productive the discussion will be.

Eugene


-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:42 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Elective Bible Classes

Well, I'm looking but not seeing it. How nice of him to let me know he
had responded to my article. This is the first time I ever knew there
was a letter--should I care to make any rebuttal.  And tell me, is it
you or Professor Bradley or both of you who is so careless about
accuracy that you have misspelled my name?  Tsk, tsk. That is exactly
what the Bible in the Schools curriculum has been taken to task for. . .
.
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: what does the right REALLY think of Roberts?

[Volokh, Eugene]

Title: Message



    Folks:  As I 
mentioned, let's please focus our discussions as much as possible on the law of 
government and religion, rather than on libertarian theory more 
broadly.
 
    The list 
custodian
 

-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:02 
AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: what does the 
right REALLY think of Roberts?

  
  
  In a message dated 7/26/2005 11:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
By the way, most social liberals who consider themselves 
libertarian do not support gun rights, school choice, low taxes, 
freedom of contract and other economic liberties, etc. So even if I am 
not a 100% libertarian, I score higher on the libertarian scale than do 
many liberals who like to think of themselves as lovers of liberty. Indeed, 
I would go a long way toward abolishing the Regulatory Welfare State, much 
further than most self-identified 
libertarians.
  Whether by Rick or by 
  "social liberals" picking and choosing only their favorite libertarian rights 
  impoverishes libertarian theory.  Moreover, libertarians, courageously, 
  raise the evil of government intrusion into areas of human freedom. Social 
  conservatism makes no bones about permitting governmental regulation of vast 
  areas of human conduct. The fundamental attraction of libertarianism is that 
  except for certain obvious restrictions--to ensure the freedom of 
  others-- of freedom, libertarians recoil at thinking of the libertarian 
  project as a "scale" according to which anyone can claim libertarian 
  credentials just so long as he or she rejects state regulation in some 
  areas of life. To advocate "abolishing the Regulatory Welfare State" 
  does not, in my view, a libertarian make, especially when the individual 
  claiming libertarian status embraces "the Regulatory Personal Morality State" 
  as do many social and religious conservatives.
   
  Bobby
   
  Robert Justin 
  LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
  LawDelaware
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: what does the right REALLY think of Roberts?

[Volokh, Eugene]

Sorry to be a bother, but please recall that this is a list
aimed at the discussion (from an academic perspective) of the law of
government and religion.  Questions about how Judge Roberts' appointment
may affect Religion Clauses doctrine are on-topic; questions about how
the nomination may end up being entangled with Religion Clauses
questions are also on-topic.  But questions about what the right thinks
of Roberts on other matters (including abortion rights, federalism, and
the like) are, I'm afraid, not on-topic.  

I understand that they're indirectly connected to the list topic
-- but so are very many other things.  It seems to me that we're better
off focusing on the list's announced subject matter, and its comparative
advantage, which is the law of government and religion.

The list custodian
___
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.

More from the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  The question whether the phrase "the Biil of Rights" should be 
understood as referring to the first ten amendments, or the first twelve 
proposed amendments, is fascinating.  It is not terribly relevant to the law of 
government and religion.  One could have a great discussion about it, which 
would turn on (among other things) (1) whether the meaning of a phrase should 
be determined -- for purposes of usage, not of legal doctrine -- by current 
usage or by historical authorities (the descriptivism vs. prescriptivism 
debate), and (2) whether the historical authorities did in fact at one point 
define the Bill of Rights as being the first 12 proposed amendments, or whether 
it had always been seen as being the first 10 enacted amendments (or perhaps 
had always been used to refer to both).  But that is a discussion people should 
have off-list, or on a legal linguistics list, not on this list.
 
Eugene "The List Custodian, Who Asks People to Follow the List Rules" Volokh
___
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.

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  (1)  Even if you think a fellow list member's position is nonsense, 
don't say it.  Say it's mistaken, or unsound, or turns out not to be the case.  
It's more persuasive, more conducive to sound discussions, and more likely to 
shed heat than light.
 
(2)  This is especially so if your disagreement has to do with terminological 
nuances that don't fully reflect actual modern usage.  The phrase "Bill of 
Rights" today is generally used to refer to the first Ten Amendments that were 
actually ratified.  Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's the way it is.  It's not 
nonsense for people to use this colloquial usage, just as it's not nonsense for 
them to say "American" when they mean citizen of the United States of America 
(despite the not implausible arguments that this is imprecise), or "Asian" when 
they mean "a person whose fairly recent ancestors come from East Asia" (despite 
the not implausible arguments that "Asian" should also include, for instance, 
Israelis).  Nor is it nonsense to suggest that a depiction that lists things 
numbered I-X might refer to what is colloquially called the Bill of Rights; 
there may be historical reasons to question this (I don't know), but that the 
original proposed Bill of Rights had twelve provisions doesn't strike me as one 
of them.
 
(3)  One problem with such terminological disagreements, whether polite or not, 
is that they spawn threads that are most distantly related to the list topic -- 
though generally the harsher the original post, the more people will feel the 
need to respond, even if the matter is somewhat off-topic.
 
(4)  But in any event, even if the other person had committed an error, and a 
serious one, please correct the error politely.  Many thanks,
 
The list custodian
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: evangelize

[Volokh, Eugene]

Title: Message



    I don't find it 
offensive because of its content -- but it's not allowed in this venue.  
Imagine that this were a mathematicians' convention, and people were talking 
about math, and someone got up and started to evangelize.  That would be 
inappropriate, because off-topic.  So are your posts.  Please do not 
post any further on this, or I will have to unsubscribe you.
 
    
I would normally not post such messages to the 
list, but would deal with such matters privately.  But given that I've 
already asked you once off-list to stop posting off-topic messages, I feel I 
need to reassure the other list members that they're going to be getting what 
they subscribed to get -- discussions of law -- and not personal religious 
messages.
 
    
To the other members on the list:  I don't 
think we need any further discussion of this off-topic matter, unless you feel 
strongly about it.  Many thanks,
 
    
The list custodian
 
 

 
So be it, but it is important, I 
  believe to be reminded of the ONLY reason we Christians ought to be followers 
  of Jesus the Christ, and that reason is to evangelize the lost. I do not find 
  that declaration offensive in this venue or any other. 

___
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.

From the list custodian re: off-topic posts

[Volokh, Eugene]

Title: Message



    I much appreciated Mr. Heckmann's helpful 
response to the offending post -- which I 
would have offered myself, had I read my e-mail earlier.  But for now let's 
assume that the poster has been properly enlightened about the list rules, and 
that no more needs to be added.
 
    The list 
custodian
___
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.

From the list custodian RE: John Lofton/Role Of Judges?

[Volokh, Eugene]

It's off-topic.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Finkelman
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:53 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: John Lofton/Role Of Judges?
> 
> 
> is this a final exam question for all of us?
> paul finkelman
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> -- 
> Paul Finkelman
> Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Tulsa College of Law
> 3120 East 4th Place
> Tulsa, OK   74104-3189
> 
> 918-631-3706 (office)
> 918-631-2194 (fax)
> 
> [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.
> 
___
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: From the list custodian

[Newsom Michael]

I want to take this occasion publicly to thank Eugene for his calm,
levelheaded responses.  I am not sure that I deserve it, even though I
hit the wrong button, but I want to thank Eugene. 

-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 8:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: From the list custodian

Folks:  I don't think I need to go further into the need to keep posts
on the list as polite and substantive as possible -- and to think twice
before hitting "enter," both to look again over the substance of the
message, and to make sure it's being sent to the right place.
 
Let me remind people of one other matter:  Please keep all posts focused
on *the law of government and religion*, which is to say how the law
(the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, Title VII, etc.)
affects religious institutions, behavior, and the like.  (Discussions of
a discussion list's boundaries and list etiquette are also technically
on-topic, up to a point, but that's not really relevant here.)
 
Broader moral or religious questions, such as whether homosexuality is
morally proper, how religious people should react to it, and so on are
*not* on-topic.  Naturally they're related to the list topic, but if we
are to keep the list focused on its comparative advantage, and keep
discussions manageably brief, we need to limit ourselves to *the law* of
government and religion.
 
So if your post doesn't mention the law, change it to include an
explicit legal tie-in.  And if that looks like too much of an
afterthought, then please send the post off-list (and make sure that it
is indeed off-list).  Thanks very much,
 
Eugene
___
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

Re: From the list custodian

[lweinberg]

April 12, 2004
To the List
Dear Gene,
I am
teaching a new "the Constitution and religion" seminar at Texas
this semester and have discovered it is next to impossible to keep
students from proving to each other that there is or is not an
intelligent design, a supreme being, an afterlife, etc., and that there
will or will not be a rapture.  We have been using Gey's excellent
casebook, a balanced and interesting approach with good, substantial case
reports.  It would appear that, where this subject matter is
concerned, apparently both seminar students and list members require more
controlling than customary in such settings!
Best,
Louise

At 07:04 AM 4/12/04, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Folks:  I don't think I need to go further into the need to keep
posts on the list as polite and substantive as possible -- and to think
twice before hitting "enter," both to look again over the
substance of the message, and to make sure it's being sent to the right
place.
 
Let me remind people of one other matter:  Please keep all posts
focused on *the law of government and religion*, which is to say how the
law (the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, Title VII, etc.)
affects religious institutions, behavior, and the like. 
(Discussions of a discussion list's boundaries and list etiquette are
also technically on-topic, up to a point, but that's not really relevant
here.)
 
Broader moral or religious questions, such as whether homosexuality is
morally proper, how religious people should react to it, and so on are
*not* on-topic.  Naturally they're related to the list topic, but if
we are to keep the list focused on its comparative advantage, and keep
discussions manageably brief, we need to limit ourselves to *the law* of
government and religion.
 
So if your post doesn't mention the law, change it to include an explicit
legal tie-in.  And if that looks like too much of an afterthought,
then please send the post off-list (and make sure that it is indeed
off-list).  Thanks very much,
 
Eugene___
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
___
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

Re: From the list custodian

[FRAP428]

Considering my hand "spanked." I can only plead being deprived of conversations with law professors. 

"Broader moral or religious questions, such as whether homosexuality is morally proper, how religious people should react to it, and so on are *not* on-topic.  Naturally they're related to the list topic, but if we are to keep the list focused on its comparative advantage, and keep discussions manageably brief, we need to limit ourselves to *the law* of government and religion."

One of the few people who upon finishing law school would have started all over again--in a heartbeat. This was an explicit thought the day I graduated. 

Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
___
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

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  I don't think I need to go further into the need to keep posts on the list as 
polite and substantive as possible -- and to think twice before hitting "enter," both 
to look again over the substance of the message, and to make sure it's being sent to 
the right place.
 
Let me remind people of one other matter:  Please keep all posts focused on *the law 
of government and religion*, which is to say how the law (the Free Exercise Clause, 
the Establishment Clause, Title VII, etc.) affects religious institutions, behavior, 
and the like.  (Discussions of a discussion list's boundaries and list etiquette are 
also technically on-topic, up to a point, but that's not really relevant here.)
 
Broader moral or religious questions, such as whether homosexuality is morally proper, 
how religious people should react to it, and so on are *not* on-topic.  Naturally 
they're related to the list topic, but if we are to keep the list focused on its 
comparative advantage, and keep discussions manageably brief, we need to limit 
ourselves to *the law* of government and religion.
 
So if your post doesn't mention the law, change it to include an explicit legal 
tie-in.  And if that looks like too much of an afterthought, then please send the post 
off-list (and make sure that it is indeed off-list).  Thanks very much,
 
Eugene
___
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

From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

Folks:  Just a gentle reminder to focus each post as much as
possible on the law of government and religion, rather than on theology
and on what an intelligent designer, if one exists, would be like.  I
realize that such questions are related to the legal questions, but all
questions are in some measure related to all other questions; it would
be good if each post was more directly focused on the legal issues.

In particular, let me suggest a rule of thumb:  Make sure that
each post has at least one sentence that focuses on a legal matter.  If
necessary, add such a sentence.  And if the sentence seems too out of
place, then that might suggest that the post isn't on-topic enough.

Eugene
___
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