Re: Every Idea is an Incitement
Most clergy I've known or know of could present a fine, inspirational message without turning it into an establishment clause violation. Were they to do that, few would complain. Under present law, it's not the religious view that is contrary to the Constitution; it's religious exercise. There is no Constitutional right against being offended. There is a Constitutional right not to have religion imposed, even one's own religion (see Lee v. Weisman, for example). Religious views of students are even protected. Ed Darrell DallasSteven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote: It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? Maybe its because of the special status of religion in the constitution -- i.e., the prohibition of establishment? Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "I care not what subject is taught if only it be taught well." Thomas H. Huxley___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
Many, but by no means all, of the “separationist” decisions discuss the matter of psychological and status harm. So too, do some of the old cases that upheld state-supported religion in the common schools, the difference being that in the latter cases, the courts disparaged the claims of harm, or merely told the objectors to get over it. (I extensively discuss the problem of harm and the judicial response thereto in my Common School Religion piece.) There is a clear link, therefore, between the harm at issue here and the EC. I take it that you do not agree with Santa Fe ISD v. Doe. -Original Message- From: Brad M Pardee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:24 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Every Idea is an Incitement A couple of thoughts. First, although a case can be made that the establishment prohibition prevents the school from directing a person to give a religious address, I was always under the impression that a commencement speaker is representing their own views, not those of the school. For example, if the person speaks out against the war in Iraq, it would not be understood as the school district endorsing their views of the war, so there shouldn't be an establishment violation if the person references religion, which should similarly not be understood as the views of the school district. Second, Marc's post that I was responding to referred to "the objection and offense felt by person entitled to attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs". He didn't refer to an establishment violation but rather "objection and offense". My observation was that people attending commencement ceremonies are going to hear things to which they object or take offense, yet nobody has suggested that objection or offense is a basis for censoring any viewpoints other than religious ones. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 09/02/2005 09:55:59 AM: > On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote: > > > It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object > > to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark > > greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war > > in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a > > Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq > > isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President > > Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them > > in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views > > of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that > > only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? > > > Maybe its because of the special status of religion in the > constitution -- i.e., the prohibition of establishment? > > Steve ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
The Establishment Clause. -Original Message- From: Brad M Pardee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 10:39 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Every Idea is an Incitement It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? Brad Marc wrote on 09/02/2005 09:08:41 AM: > Apparently academics are not the only ones whose surroundings blind them > to understand "just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their > perception" of the Establishment Clause has on others. Jim seems not to > understand at all the objection and offense felt by person entitled to > attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers > using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Every Idea is an Incitement
I guess I disagree with just about all of your points, Brad. I think a commencement speaker or valedictorian can say a great deal that is meaningful and substantive without being offensive. Certainly that has been my experience. It may take more time and effort to prepare that kind of a talk -- but I have listened to, and delivered, substantive, non-offensive addresses at graduation. (I've also heard some boring talks and a couple of offensive presentations.) Most commencement talks that offend people aren't problematic because they are substantive; they are problematic because the speaker is disrespectful, arrogant, insensitive, or uses language or addresses a topic that is inappropriate for the occasion. Good commencement talks are not polemics or diatribes (and Michael Moore would be a terrible choice for a commencement speaker). They can address issues on which people may strongly disagree in a way that recognizes the difficulty of the problem and the reasons why there isn't any consensus on how to solve it. I'm not sure why that kind of a discussion (which by the way is the way I try to teach my classes at law school) isn't substantive or should be described as nothing more than Hallmark greeting card platitudes. As for censorship, valedictory talks were routinely censored in the good old days of public education. In many districts, they are still reviewed by school authorities, and in my judgement, properly so. Looking at the issue from a policy perspective, putting constitutional law aside, there is no reason why only religious messages should be censored (and not all references to religion are inappropriate at commencement at a public school). But I do not think principals who review commencement talks limit their intervention solely to religious messages. If they do, they aren't doing their job in a fair and responsible way. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 09:39 AM 9/2/2005 -0500, you wrote: It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? Brad Marc wrote on 09/02/2005 09:08:41 AM: > Apparently academics are not the only ones whose surroundings blind them > to understand "just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their > perception" of the Establishment Clause has on others. Jim seems not to > understand at all the objection and offense felt by person entitled to > attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers > using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
Just so. Again adverting to my experience "under the magnifying glass" with the "Governing Policy" of a certain organization by framing the issue as one of "religion", they succeed in giving the impression that it is just fine to "force" people to be part of exercises that offend their conviction,s as long as it is done without mentioning G_d. At 08:37 AM 9/2/05 -0700, you wrote: Good points, Brad. The 1A is concerned about state endorsements of religion, but it is also concerned when persons are made part of a captive audience for speech that offends them. If a commencement audience is a captive audience, it is captive not just for religious speech as in Weisman, but also for secular speech. Rick Duncan -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/05 ___ 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.
Re: Every Idea is an Incitement
Bobby: Of course, I was not comparing the harm of being excluded from the U of C to the harm of drowning in a flood. But many on this and other law prof lists are very concerned--and properly so--with law students who got out safely from N.O. but whose law schools careers have been disrupted by the floods. So being denied an educational opportunity is not a trivial harm, whether you are a law student from N.O. or a Christian high school student in California. Moreover, when some parents' memorials to their murdered children are excluded from a public forum, created as a healing response to the tragedy, because the parents expressed religious sentiments about their lost children, this adds insult to injury and is a harm that deserves to be counted. Most theists I know care deeply about harms like poverty, racism, and disease. Some favor big government as the solution to these problems; others favor private charity and right living (the fruits of religious morality) as the solution. Secular liberals and conservative theists both care about the least of these our brethren, although there are disagreements about who counts as the object of compassion (e.g., unborn children) and what solutions to embrace. Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/2/2005 9:55:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Real people are affected when memorial speeches, crosses, and plaques are censored in the name of anti-establishment. Real people are denied equal access to state universities when courses they take at academically-rigorous high schools are disqualified because their textbooks contain a religious viewpoint of science or history. Is the contention that "real" people harmed in the above ways are harmed equally as those who die in a flood, live in an inner city war zone, have little food, no health care, and so forth? I have no doubt that some theists are harmed in a democratic society that believes keeping significant religious rituals from the public square on the grounds of general religious liberty and the danger from overreaching religions is the best form of constitutional democracy. But is anyone seriously arguing that these harms are comparable. The problem for many nontheists (as well as for theists who do not believe the above harms have priority in their religious values) is that some theists seem to care more about the above harms than poverty, disease, crime, racism, and so forth. I am not accusing anyone on this List of having such priorities. But can it be seriously maintained that some notables in the wider society do have these priorities? And the general question then becomes which kinds of harms should citizens in a constitu! tional democracy take more seriously? That is the question at the bottom of how should one react--or what is the appropriate reaction--when a citizen such as New Orleans is devastated. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.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 ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement for RD
Dear Ric: I thought your post on everyone taking offense when their version of the establishment clause not honored a good one. Reminds me of all the reasons why O'connor's reasonable endorsement test probably makes no sense to the left and the right. MAG ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
In a message dated 9/2/2005 9:55:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Real people are affected when memorial speeches, crosses, and plaques are censored in the name of anti-establishment. Real people are denied equal access to state universities when courses they take at academically-rigorous high schools are disqualified because their textbooks contain a religious viewpoint of science or history. Is the contention that "real" people harmed in the above ways are harmed equally as those who die in a flood, live in an inner city war zone, have little food, no health care, and so forth? I have no doubt that some theists are harmed in a democratic society that believes keeping significant religious rituals from the public square on the grounds of general religious liberty and the danger from overreaching religions is the best form of constitutional democracy. But is anyone seriously arguing that these harms are comparable. The problem for many nontheists (as well as for theists who do not believe the above harms have priority in their religious values) is that some theists seem to care more about the above harms than poverty, disease, crime, racism, and so forth. I am not accusing anyone on this List of having such priorities. But can it be seriously maintained that some notables in the wider society do have these priorities? And the general question then becomes which kinds of harms should citizens in a constitutional democracy take more seriously? That is the question at the bottom of how should one react--or what is the appropriate reaction--when a citizen such as New Orleans is devastated. 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.
Re: Every Idea is an Incitement
On Sep 2, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote: Second, Marc's post that I was responding to referred to "the objection and offense felt by person entitled to attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs". He didn't refer to an establishment violation but rather "objection and offense". My observation was that people attending commencement ceremonies are going to hear things to which they object or take offense, yet nobody has suggested that objection or offense is a basis for censoring any viewpoints other than religious ones. Then allow me to make that, or rather a similar suggestion. The speaker should be aware of the setting and the function of it and tailor remarks accordingly.Marc was not, I think, using objection or offense as a basis for censorship (meaning by an outside person), nor, in the main, am I. Phrasing can make a huge difference. I may object to being called a traitor for opposing the Viet Nam war, but would not object to someone defending our involvement in it without demonizing those who opposed it.Jim went over the line of decorum in exploiting a massive tragedy. But that is how Jim makes his points, howsoever ineffective on the merits, that technique does draw attention even as it repulses. Not my idea of compliance with the Buddhist concept of right speech, but then not everyone even aspires to such conduct or speech. Many Christians do, however.Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. "William Blake ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
Good points, Brad. The 1A is concerned about state endorsements of religion, but it is also concerned when persons are made part of a captive audience for speech that offends them. If a commencement audience is a captive audience, it is captive not just for religious speech as in Weisman, but also for secular speech. Rick Duncan Brad M Pardee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A couple of thoughts. First, although a case can be made that the establishment prohibition prevents the school from directing a person to give a religious address, I was always under the impression that a commencement speaker is representing their own views, not those of the school. For example, if the person speaks out against the war in Iraq, it would not be understood as the school district endorsing their views of the war, so there shouldn't be an establishment violation if the person references religion, which should similarly not be understood as the views of the school district. Second, Marc's post that I was responding to referred to "the objection and offense felt by person entitled to attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers using the! m as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs". He didn't refer to an establishment violation but rather "objection and offense". My observation was that people attending commencement ceremonies are going to hear things to which they object or take offense, yet nobody has suggested that objection or offense is a basis for censoring any viewpoints other than religious ones. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 09/02/2005 09:55:59 AM:> On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote: > > > It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object> > to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark > > greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war > > in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a > > Michael Moore. The person who s! trongly opposes the war in Iraq > > isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President > > Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them > > in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views > > of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that> > only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense?> >> Maybe its because of the special status of religion in the > constitution -- i.e., the prohibition of establishment? > > Steve ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.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 ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
A couple of thoughts. First, although a case can be made that the establishment prohibition prevents the school from directing a person to give a religious address, I was always under the impression that a commencement speaker is representing their own views, not those of the school. For example, if the person speaks out against the war in Iraq, it would not be understood as the school district endorsing their views of the war, so there shouldn't be an establishment violation if the person references religion, which should similarly not be understood as the views of the school district. Second, Marc's post that I was responding to referred to "the objection and offense felt by person entitled to attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs". He didn't refer to an establishment violation but rather "objection and offense". My observation was that people attending commencement ceremonies are going to hear things to which they object or take offense, yet nobody has suggested that objection or offense is a basis for censoring any viewpoints other than religious ones. Brad Steven Jamar wrote on 09/02/2005 09:55:59 AM: > On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote: > > > It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object > > to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark > > greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war > > in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a > > Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq > > isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President > > Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them > > in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views > > of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that > > only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? > > > Maybe its because of the special status of religion in the > constitution -- i.e., the prohibition of establishment? > > Steve ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote:It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? Maybe its because of the special status of religion in the constitution -- i.e., the prohibition of establishment?Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"I care not what subject is taught if only it be taught well."Thomas H. Huxley ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes. The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore. The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush. Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend. Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? Brad Marc wrote on 09/02/2005 09:08:41 AM: > Apparently academics are not the only ones whose surroundings blind them > to understand "just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their > perception" of the Establishment Clause has on others. Jim seems not to > understand at all the objection and offense felt by person entitled to > attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers > using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Every Idea is an Incitement
Apparently academics are not the only ones whose surroundings blind them to understand "just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their perception" of the Establishment Clause has on others. Jim seems not to understand at all the objection and offense felt by person entitled to attend the ceremonies of which he writes but who object to speakers using them as an occasion to promote their religious beliefs. Marc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:46 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Every Idea is an Incitement Jim Henderson writes, "Candidly, the pique about my posting is a bit much. The most sublime moments in personal history, graduations, memorial services, ground breakings, If you are not one of the dunderheads who have taken a red pencil and scratched a line through the text of Johnny's or Suzie's remarks then I am not speaking about you, I am merely advising you that these real life instances occur. For those whose nestling into academia is complete, who do not practice in the real world at all, the antisepsis of their circumstance may overwhelm the ability to understand just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their perception of the requirements of the EC are felt by those whose words, works and memorials are desecrated by the efforts." I guess I am a quasi-dunderhead. I would not worry about spontaneous expressions of Christianity at a memorial service because the cost in grief strikes me as outweighing the constitutional wrong. Valedictory addresses are supposed to be thoughtful. As such, I insist that they be consistent with the constitution. Of course, I may be wrong about what is consistent with the constitution, but it strikes me that a considerable difference exists between graduations and memorial services such that we might expect teenagers to act more constitutionally at the former, whatever our notions of constitutionality. That every idea may be an incitement does not require all ideas to be expressed as incitements. Mark A. Graber ___ 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: Every Idea is an Incitement
Thanks, Jim, for an excellent post. It really is easy to forget that real people are suffering in the midst of the issues we debate on this list. Real people are suffering in New Orleans right now. They need material help and prayers. Our troops are in harm's way in Iraq. They should not be used as political pawns by either side of the war issue. Real people are affected when memorial speeches, crosses, and plaques are censored in the name of anti-establishment. Real people are denied equal access to state universities when courses they take at academically-rigorous high schools are disqualified because their textbooks contain a religious viewpoint of science or history. But I will also try not to forget that real people, like Michael Newdow, feel they are harmed by government-sponsored religious expressions in the public schools. As Mr. Newdow himself argued before the Court:"I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. And every morning my child is asked to stand up, face that flag, put her hand over her heart, and say that her father is wrong."Perhaps we all need to think long and hard before we call each other dishonest, or mean-spirited, or irrational, or hostile, or fundamentalists, or unconcerned with the public good. Cheers, Rick Duncan[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/2/2005 8:39:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wonder whether in this time of disaster, several list memberswhose contributions are consistently valuable may wonder whether a) theyinadvertently picked a fight with people who had civility reasons fornot fighting at this time or b)overreacted to an effort to raiselegitimate questions that was probably unncessarily provocative. Candidly, the pique about my posting is a bit much. The most sublime moments in personal history, graduations, memorial services, ground breakings, etc., have been marred by individuals whose view of the EC compels them to tell Johnny that he can't mention the Bible in his valedictory address, telling Suzie that she can't remember aloud for her classmates that her now-dead friend drew great comfort and solace during her illness by resort to prayer, by insisting that some memorial plaques, ones reflecting a keenly felt nexus between crises and faith, are less equal than others. If you are not one of the dunderheads who have taken a red pencil and scratched a line through the text of Johnny's or Suzie's remarks then I am not speaking about you, I am merely advising you that these real life instances occur. For those whose nestling into academia is complete, who do not practice in the real world at all, the antisepsis of their circumstance may overwhelm the ability to understand just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their perception of the requirements of the EC are felt by those whose words, works and memorials are desecrated by the efforts. Hamfisted government actions, often taken out of fear of litigation, do not happen in a vacuum. They happen during the real lives of real people. The lawsuit to remove the cross in Los Angeles is provocative. It is a memorial to lives lost; to sacrifices made. Where is the chastening of the provocateurs? For that matter, how many on this list have used the cross case as an illustrative fact pattern with students, or on this list, or in academic writings, without pausing to reflect on the fact that for a generation described as the greatest that memorial offers a permanent, appropriate and keenly felt commemoration. "Unnecessary" provocation is a standard that seems inevitably to lead to subjective judgments and provide little effective guidance. In this regard, we could look at the recent list discussion on the conlaw list regarding the Iraqi constitution deadline. In the run up to the deadline set for the proposition of an Iraqi constitution, as government ministers, citizens, police, and our soldiers, were constantly in harm's way, one of the conlaw list members, one whose contributions to that list undoubtedly fits many readers' view of "consistent value," provoked a discussion with serious political overtones, in essence even if not in purpose, maligning the administration here at home for the artificiality of the deadline, the failure to grasp that such a difficult goal would not be won by hamfisted efforts, etc. I will not go back by date and see how many folks -- the good, the bad, the ugly, the innocent, the guilty -- died at the hands of the terroristic insurgency or police/military responses to it on each of the days that the discussion on the conlaw list went forward. I know that the number is significant. Did the ongoing slaughter silence the discussion? No. Was it provocative? Was it susceptible to the kind of reading that would lead to undermining support of the effort here at home? Ask those on the list who support the administration's and our Nation's efforts there. But, and this is the important question, should the que
Re: Every Idea is an Incitement
Jim Henderson writes, "Candidly, the pique about my posting is a bit much. The most sublime moments in personal history, graduations, memorial services, ground breakings, If you are not one of the dunderheads who have taken a red pencil and scratched a line through the text of Johnny's or Suzie's remarks then I am not speaking about you, I am merely advising you that these real life instances occur. For those whose nestling into academia is complete, who do not practice in the real world at all, the antisepsis of their circumstance may overwhelm the ability to understand just how harshly their efforts to vindicate their perception of the requirements of the EC are felt by those whose words, works and memorials are desecrated by the efforts." I guess I am a quasi-dunderhead. I would not worry about spontaneous expressions of Christianity at a memorial service because the cost in grief strikes me as outweighing the constitutional wrong. Valedictory addresses are supposed to be thoughtful. As such, I insist that they be consistent with the constitution. Of course, I may be wrong about what is consistent with the constitution, but it strikes me that a considerable difference exists between graduations and memorial services such that we might expect teenagers to act more constitutionally at the former, whatever our notions of constitutionality. That every idea may be an incitement does not require all ideas to be expressed as incitements. Mark A. Graber ___ 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.
