subject:"Re\: Steven Williams Case .\:."











They are wrong be about it being unconstitutional
to teach religion because the Supreme Court-including its most liberal and separationist
justices –have said so repeatedly beginning no later than Schempp. It is
also impossible to teach many subjects well without an understanding of
religion-i.e. current events and history. The failure of history texts to
grapple with religion in the 70’s and 80’s –documented inter
alia by an important  study conducted by People for the American Way or Americans
United-I have forgotten which for the moment--  led to widespread disenchantment
with public education in some elements of the population. The silence was
interpreted –not always incorrectly-as a conclusion that religion was not
very important as a social force or that it is always socially retrogressive. Cutting
out evangelical Christianity from the abolitionist movement  or ignoring
the Christian roots of Martin Luther King’ s leadership role in the civil
rights struggle says something about a texts’ view of the importance of
religion.

Much the same can be said for Bible as
literature courses or comparative religion courses. These can surely be taught
reasonably objectively if one tries and they cover a subject matter that is
culturally important.  Such courses cannot be Sunday school classes in
public school garb, but it is not hard to meet that standard. It is unfortunate
that Mr. Williams course of conduct suggests otherwise and that he finds
defenders but the fundamental point remains true.

Marc Stern

 

From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004
3:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information



 

Could you explain why liberals are wrong?

 

-Original Message-
From: Marc Stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
1:12 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case -
more factual information

 

.



Liberals are sometimes
suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are
wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise.:





 





 








___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-16 Thread RJLipkin





In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:55:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you 
  think that experience requires a different conclusion, then you simply have 
  not read the opposing briefs of a variety of groups on the opposite side from 
  me in numerous constitutional cases.

I think briefs are one of 
the worst examples of testing the importance of the distinction between teaching 
and proselytizing. Briefs are advocacy pieces, usually (in my experience a long 
time ago as a federal appellate clerk) poorly done.  Impartiality, if it 
exists at all, is not likely to be found in briefs. Indeed, it might be 
oxymoronic to contend that impartiality is or should be a goal of brief writing. 

 
The distinction between 
impartiality and advocacy, of course, itself is one of those troubling 
distinctions (or perhaps dichotomies) whose use might be counterproductive 
generally.  Still shouldn't we exhibit patience when hearing someone using 
this distinction to see if that particular person is sensitive to 
its importance and is also sensitive to the ease of abusing 
it. Only a few people, Stanley Fish comes to mind if his work is not 
completely based in irony, sincerely believe that these distinctions are 
meaningless, incoherent or necessarily subject to abuse. Finally, 
distinctions such as "teaching and "proselytizing" and "impartiality" and 
"advocacy" as well as a host of others are currently defining characteristics of 
our conceptual discourse.  Abandoning these distinctions, while not 
impossible I suppose, requires a revolution in conceptual discourse similar to 
the types of revolutions in science Kuhn wrote about. Rejecting our current 
conceptual discourse is not impossible, but the cost is enormous and should 
not be borne without an extraordinary justification.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-16 Thread RJLipkin






In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:20:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The word 
  is used loosely often, this I grant, but there is a difference between 
  teaching about and proselytization howsoever easily one can drift from one 
  to the other if unwary or if not trying to avoid doing 
so.
Conceptually, Steve 
must be right. Right? To denigrate this distinction means that at least in 
principle, we can draw the distinction.  Of course, in fact the distinction 
might be difficult to apply or even susceptible to abuse, but the cases where 
what was thought to be an important (interesting, useful, etc.) distinction 
proves wrong are, I would think, rare. 
 
So it goes with the 
distinction between "teaching" and "proselytizing." If both sides in a 
controversy accuse the other of proselytizing not teaching, it is unlikely that 
the distinction is meaningless or incoherent, or that its use is always 
partisan. One can, of course, counsel others not to use the distinction, or at 
least not to use it as a dispositive mechanism. But such counsel presupposes the 
intelligibility of the distinction, not its incoherence, and certainly not the 
inevitability of its abuse in public discourse.
 
Bobby
 
 
Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

Steve,

I will not limit that remark to myself.  In fact I do not make this use of the term.  But in a constitutional law career nearing the twenty year mark, I no longer feel tentative about expressing what I think candor would require most to admit:  proselyzing is the ugly term (even though it is actually a perfectly fine word) used to poison the minds of individuals to whom its users are communicating about the persuasive efforts of others.  If you think that experience requires a different conclusion, then you simply have not read the opposing briefs of a variety of groups on the opposite side from me in numerous constitutional cases.

By the way, you may have missed part of my point.  I readily concede that such activities, whether powerful and persuasive (because we like the speaker or his ideas) or proselyzing (because we mistrust the speaker or his  motivations), are different in kind from teaching about religion.  I understand Professor Newsome's argument that actually teaching about religion is accomplished at best imperfectly (and I'd agree with his conclusion but not likely with his reasoning), but I don't think that imperfect accomplishments are reason to abandon worthy enterprises.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-16 Thread Steven Jamar


On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 12:22  PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are disagreeable are readily described as proselytizing.  There is, it seems, a knee-jerking content to the term that makes it valuable in guiding discussions away from substance.)  

please limit this to yourself, it if is indeed true for you.  It is not true in my experience, except for some close minded zealots -- with whom I haven't much direct contact these days.  The word is used loosely often, this I grant, but there is a difference between teaching about and proselytization howsoever easily one can drift from one to the other if unwary or if not trying to avoid doing so.

-- 
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/

"There is no cosmic law forbidding the triumph of extremism in America."

Thomas McIntyre
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-16 Thread FRAP428

In a message dated 12/16/04 5:25:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

if we leave it to other non-public institutions to teach about it.

Well, nongovernmental institutions anyway. I admit to a bit of concern regarding the use of the terms public and government interchangeably.  One can opine that religion has been thrown out of the public square when the only square the Establishment Clause addresses is that portion of public life "owned" in a sense by the government. As I look around (despite teapot tempests over "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays") I see an abundance of religious _expression_--much of it, to be sure, on private property but property that is either open to the public or expressing a belief/statement/viewpoint that the public sees/can see at will. So I guess it should be asked, "Define 'public.'"

Sometimes, it seems that some religious conservatives conflate the separation of church and state and Establishment Clause jurisprudence (Engel and its progeny) with the nongovernmental secularization (coarsening?) of the culture. Some ascribe the secularization of the culture to the former and wish to use the machinery of the state to reduce it. 

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

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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









There is a place in a civil society for
common schools.  Given the commitment, of at least some of us, to
religious pluralism, the teaching/proselytizing of religion needs to happen
somewhere else.  I am certainly not arguing for the elimination of the
public schools.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
5:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 





In a message dated 12/16/2004
5:14:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





namely that teaching and
proselytizing religion tend to go hand in hand.







Another very good reason for
eliminating public schools, or as my liberal friends so often want to do,
relying on the canadian model, under which public and parochial schools are
funded.  Then all are accommodated and the realpolitik of NEA proselyzation
does not threaten people of faith.





 





Jim Henderson





Senior Counsel





ACLJ








___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









Actually, one could reach a different
conclusion about “ignoring” religion in the common schools:
religion is sufficiently important to so many Americans, but since we hold a
wide range of religious or philosophical views, that we respect religion, its
uniqueness and its diversity, if we leave it to other non-public institutions
to teach about it.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
2:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 





In a message dated 12/16/2004
11:54:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





It is not wrong to be
concerned about stigma and exclusion, as some members of the Court have noted
over the years.  







But this is why education must
including teaching about religion.  Stigma and exclusion attach to the
things we disregard, the things we discount, the things we devalue.  Few
things more effectively communicate disregard, discounted importance, and
devaluation as well as the act of ignoring.





 





Jim Henderson





Senior Counsel





ACLJ








___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information




In a message dated 12/16/2004 11:54:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not wrong to be concerned about stigma and exclusion, as some members of the Court have noted over the years.  
But this is why education must including teaching about religion.  Stigma and exclusion attach to the things we disregard, the things we discount, the things we devalue.  Few things more effectively communicate disregard, discounted importance, and devaluation as well as the act of ignoring.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases









My brief making these  points is to be
found at our website sometime within the next few hours

 www.AJCONGRESS.ORG

Marc

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
1:56 PM
To: Law
 & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams case
and the Ten Commandments cases



 

The ADL has filed a very thoughtful brief elaborating on Marc and
Paul's points. A link to it can be found on the their web cite 
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/4601_33.htm

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis



 





At 11:09 AM 12/16/2004 -0500, you wrote:



Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C4E389.9DB03DA9"

Well for starters, the Orden monument left out
the words who took you out of Egyptan omission which makes sense on two
Protestant assumptions.

1. The sentence beginning I amis not a commandment and the
phrase who took you out of Egypt
has no normative content.

2. The commandments are universal in import, and not directed
solely at Israel.
See Mathew 19

Jews reject both assumptions. Hence the way the Orden
monument inescapably casts the commandments amounts to a repudiation of Jewish
teaching. And, of course, the focus on the commandments as such is rooted in a
Christian rejection of the totality of the law. 

Marc stern

 







From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams case
and the Ten Commandments cases

 

In a
message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This is fundamentally
wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we
know as the Ten Commandments.

<>There are
significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with
significant theological overtones. There are important differences in
translations and understanding, again with significant theological and
practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or
abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the
importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the
sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think
something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its
totality. I spell out these differences in  an amicus brief in Orden v.
Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law
review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar
piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago.

Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of
fact.  The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. 


 

And
you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally
reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward "Finding
Meaning" in those commands, differences arise.  But in the words, and
even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and
Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.

 

At the
far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in
difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found.  But take a
parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and
unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just
interpretation of an ERISA provision.

 

Jim
Henderson

Senior
Counsel

ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-16 Thread A.E. Brownstein



The ADL has filed a very thoughtful brief elaborating on Marc and Paul's
points. A link to it can be found on the their web cite 
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/4601_33.htm
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis

 


At 11:09 AM 12/16/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C4E389.9DB03DA9"
Well for starters, the Orden
monument left out the words who took you out of Egyptan omission which
makes sense on two Protestant assumptions.

1. The sentence beginning I
amis not a commandment and the phrase who took you out of Egypt has no
normative content.

2. The commandments are
universal in import, and not directed solely at Israel. See Mathew
19

Jews reject both assumptions.
Hence the way the Orden monument inescapably casts the commandments
amounts to a repudiation of Jewish teaching. And, of course, the focus on
the commandments as such is rooted in a Christian rejection of the
totality of the law. 

Marc stern

 


From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

 

In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments.


<>There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in  an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago.


Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact.  The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are.  

 

And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward "Finding Meaning" in those commands, differences arise.  But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.

 

At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found.  But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision.

 

Jim Henderson

Senior Counsel

ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases




In a message dated 12/16/2004 11:40:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have to say that James Henderson's point about there being no differences, etc., seems to me undermined by the fact that he refers to the text in a way previously unfamiliar to me as the Ten Words rather than the Ten Commandments.  Also, I assume that he doesn't literally mean "set out in full ... precisely as they are" -- as that would be in some language other than English.
Well, I appreciate your dilemma. 
 
I stand open to correction but it is my understanding that in the Hebrew the Ten Commandments are called, "aseret dev'rote" a phrase that translates literally as THE TEN WORDS.  So that, in fact, as these "commands" are literally, The Ten Words.  At least as received by Moses for the Children of Israel.  
 
And while it is obviously true that they were not rendered first in English, and that no translation ever perfectly accomplishes what the untranslated original aspires to, the reference to "set out in full . . . precisely as they are" can apply to the stones as rendered on the mount, to the hebraic texts as they now exist, or to the translations of the texts into any of the hundreds of languages into which the texts have been rendered.  And I do mean, precisely as they are, in any of the varied translations that exist, so long as those translations are accurately made.  And I understand that the originals no longer exist and were written in a language other than English.
 
This point, Professor Tushnet -- of Chaldean Hebrew versus King James versus Douay-Rheims -- is at the level of petty or lower.  
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information



Now you have made patent your concern:  proselytization.  But you seem to agree that teaching about religion is something other than proselytization.  (As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are disagreeable are readily described as proselytizing.  There is, it seems, a knee-jerking content to the term that makes it valuable in guiding discussions away from substance.)  I will concede that the First Amendment, as construed in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, bars proselyzing by school officials (not by students acting on their own).  But will you concede that, at least at the greatest level of generality that there is no constitutional impediment to teaching about religion?
 
Jim "Can't We All Just Get Along" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-16 Thread Paul Finkelman

Not to put too fine a point on these issues, but the for Roman Catholics 
and Lutherans, the 7th Commandment is a prohibition on stealing, not 
adultery.  That illustrates the whole problem of putting up these 
monuments.  What does it say to a child, for example, who passes the 
courthouse everyday and sees the 10 commandments and thinks they are 
"wrong" and is taught in Church that the list in front of the courthouse 
is wrong, but then is told by the government -- through the message of 
the courthouse -- that this is the "correct" 10 Commandments.

In general, I completely agree with Ed's other points.
Paul Finkelman
Ed Brayton wrote:
I must say, as it concerns the 10 commandments issue, that I'm not so 
concerned about the question of which text of the 10 commandments one 
uses as I am the question of why anyone rationally believes that they 
form the "basis of our laws" in the first place. At least 6 of the 10 
commandments would be entirely unconstitutional if turned into laws in 
this country, including all of the first five which are exclusively 
religious proclamations (thou shalt have no other gods before me, no 
graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy and 
honoring thy mother and father, and "coveting" they neighbor's stuff). A 
7th (thou shalt not commit adultery) would probably be unconstitutional 
under Lawrence, and is not in our system a legitimate law (though 
adultery is obviously wrong, it's not a criminal matter but a personal 
one). An 8th (not bearing false witness) can be made into law in some 
circumstances, such as perjury or libel, but not as a generalized rule. 
Only the injunctions against murder and theft are clearly a part of the 
law in the US and clearly constitutional as a general rule, and those 
laws are universal to all societies regardless of whether they've even 
heard of the Ten Commandments because no society could survive without 
them.

I've never understood this often repeated cliche that our laws are based 
on the ten commandments when at least 6 or the 10 are entirely forbidden 
to be laws at all under our constitutional system. And in all the years 
I've discussed this with people, I've never gotten a coherent answer to 
that argument. I don't think most people who make the initial argument 
even bother to think about it at all, it's just an empty truism.

Ed Brayton
___
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.

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499
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.

RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









You are, of course, right in theory, but I
think that practical experience undercuts the theory.  That is the point
that liberals, like me, make all of the time.  More importantly, practical
experience teaches, I think, that if public schools were to teach what you
would have them teach, that those students who belong to religious traditions
that, historically, were not involved in abolitionism or the civil rights
movement, will invariably be made to feel less American, feel more like
outsiders.  It is not wrong to be concerned about stigma and exclusion, as
some members of the Court have noted over the years.  

 

People like Jonathan D. Sarna, R. Laurence
Moore, and others have demonstrated that there are “counter narratives,”
the stories of members of minority religions becoming Americans.  We need
to “teach” those stories too.  But I hear no groundswell
urging that public schools teach the story of the Americanization (for want of
a better term) of Catholics, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, Hindus,
Buddhists, Animists, Pagans, Native Americans, and others, and how these groups
all too often had to contend with a majoritarian religion that was disinclined
to let them in on their own terms.  I hear no hue and cry that we “teach”
about the positive contributions to American history and society that members
of minority religions have made.  The only complaints about not enough “teaching”
about religion in the common schools seem to come largely from members of the
same religion – over and over again, like a broken record, and what they
really want to do is to have the public schools celebrate their religion.

 

With regard to the Bible, here we run into
a buzz saw.  If we take evangelical Protestantism at its word, to read the
Bible is to worship God.  The Bible functions, for evangelicals, much like
a sacrament functions for Catholics.  Bible-as-literature courses clearly
are problematic because I seriously doubt that in American school rooms, the “worship”
dimension of Bible reading can be eliminated or kept out.  This has
constitutional implications.  I don’t see the same problem with scripture
from other religions.  But I could be wrong on this point since I do not
know much about non-Christian religions.  Again, I don’t hear a hue
and cry to teach the Koran or the holy works of Buddhism or Hinduism.

 

I believe, and I suspect a fair number of
liberals believe, that the asymmetry that I have described has constitutional
implications.  I don’t think that we are wrong.  We may
disagree with you, but that does not make us wrong.   

 

-Original Message-
From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
10:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 



They are wrong be about
it being unconstitutional to teach religion because the Supreme Court-including
its most liberal and separationist justices –have said so repeatedly
beginning no later than Schempp. It is also impossible to teach many subjects
well without an understanding of religion-i.e. current events and history. The
failure of history texts to grapple with religion in the 70’s and
80’s –documented inter alia by an important  study conducted
by People for the American Way or Americans United-I have forgotten which for
the moment--  led to widespread disenchantment with public education in
some elements of the population. The silence was interpreted –not always
incorrectly-as a conclusion that religion was not very important as a social
force or that it is always socially retrogressive. Cutting out evangelical
Christianity from the abolitionist movement  or ignoring the Christian
roots of Martin Luther King’ s leadership role in the civil rights
struggle says something about a texts’ view of the importance of
religion.

Much the same can be said
for Bible as literature courses or comparative religion courses. These can
surely be taught reasonably objectively if one tries and they cover a subject
matter that is culturally important.  Such courses cannot be Sunday school
classes in public school garb, but it is not hard to meet that standard. It is
unfortunate that Mr. Williams course of conduct suggests otherwise and that he
finds defenders but the fundamental point remains true.

Marc Stern

 

From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004
3:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information



 

Could you explain why
liberals are wrong?

 

-Original Message-
From: Marc Stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
1:12 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case -
more factual information

 

.



Liberals
are sometimes suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public
schools. They are wrong to think that such

Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-16 Thread Paul Finkelman

I suspect we have a disagreement here that is verging on the 
theological.  The text of Exod 20 contains many commandments; so does 
Denuteronomy 5.  No matter how one counts them, or parses them, it there 
are clearly more than ten separate commandments in these chapters.  Jews 
 and Christians disagree about the numbering of the commandments and 
the verses.  Most obviously, Jews consider Exod 20:2 "I the Lord am your 
God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage" to 
be a separate commandment.  It stands alone as the First Commandment for 
Jews.  Most Protestants do not consider it a commandment at all; 
Catholics and Lutherans consider it part of their First Commendment, but 
only part of a much larger commandment.

Most Protestants consider Exod. 20:4 ("You shall not make for yourslef a 
sculptured image..." -- as in King James Translation, "graven image" -- 
to stand along as their second commandment.  Jews consider this to be 
part of a larger second commandment.  Catholics translate "scultured 
image" as "idol" and make this verse part of their First Commandment. 
Lutherans also consider this to be part of their First Commendment 
(although I have not been able to fully determine how it is translated 
-- if there is someone who has a clear answer I would appreciate hearing 
from you, off list if you wish).

Jews Translate Exod: 20:13 ast "you shall not murder."  Most Protestants 
and Catholics translate is as "Thou shalt not kill" (King James) 
Obviously this is a signifiant difference.

I could go on (I do at some length in my forthcoming article in Fordham.
The bottom line is this:  there are more than 10 separate commandments 
in Exod 20; different faiths order them (number them) in different ways; 
 Jews and Christians even number the verses in different ways; and the 
translations are very different have serious theological implications.

There is no one Ten Commandment that all faiths agree on or accept; nor 
is there a translation that they all agree on.  ANY Ten Commandments 
monument will, by its very nature, be offense to some or all faiths, and 
will more than likely be an endorsement of others.

Jim Henderson is simply wrong, flat out wrong, in his assertion "But in 
the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, 
Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified."

He may wish to believe this; he may even deeply believe and think that 
it is "true," but belief is not fact.  His prohibition on killing is not 
the same as my prohibition on "murder."

His first commandment "You shalt have no other gods before me." (verse 
3, King James version) is different in translation and meaning than my 
2nd commandment, "You shall have no other gods beside Me." (Tanakah 
translation.)

Paul Finkelman
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more
than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments.
<>There are significant differences in numbering the commandments,
differences with significant theological overtones. There are
important differences in translations and understanding, again with
significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing
or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment?
And there are crucial differences in the importance of the
commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and
substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think
something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but
not its totality. I spell out these differences in  an amicus brief
in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in
an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences
and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional
commentaries a few years ago.
Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact.  The Ten 
Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. 
 
And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from 
literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward 
"Finding Meaning" in those commands, differences arise.  But in the 
words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, 
Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.
 
At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for 
significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be 
found.  But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and 
you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, 
even when the issue is just i

Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-16 Thread Mark Tushnet

I have to say that James Henderson's point about there being no
differences, etc., seems to me undermined by the fact that he refers to
the text in a way previously unfamiliar to me as the Ten Words rather
than the Ten Commandments. Also, I assume that he doesn't literally
mean "set out in full ... precisely as they are" -- as that would be in
some language other than English.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact. The
Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are.
And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away
from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move
toward "Finding Meaning" in those commands, differences arise. But in
the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews,
Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.
At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for
significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be
found. But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and
you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme
Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ

___
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

RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









Of
course there is.  One can’t use the public schools to teach one
religion to the exclusion of all others.  At the very least that looks
like endorsement.  Teaching about religion in general as opposed to
teaching about one or a small number of religions has proven to be difficult,
to say the least.  The line between “teaching” and proselytizing
is remarkably indistinct.  The EC prohibits teachers from proselytizing
their students.  Thus, to the extent that teaching about and proselytizing
overlap, and, I think that the empirical evidence would back this up, the EC
does speak to teaching about religion. 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
7:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 

In a message dated 12/15/2004
4:53:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




No, that isn’t the
rub.  There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or
oxygen.



Precisely.  And there's nothing in the EC that speaks to teaching about
religion.

Jim "Copies of the Constitution Available for Your Use" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ






___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases









The
differences matter because the various formats of the Ten Commandments come
from different religious traditions, traditions that have not always enjoyed,
to put it mildly, the friendliest of relations over the years.  The scale
or dimension of the difference is irrelevant.  The question is their
significance.  I think that the various religious traditions would be
uncomfortable with the format from another religious tradition.

 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday,
 December 16, 2004 7:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams case
and the Ten Commandments cases

 

In a message dated 12/15/2004
4:52:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




Hm -- and some people say that the
Protestant Empire is dead and gone.
If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only
version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical
Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can
display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is
"contextualized"
with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for
example.

And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire
would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports
and that Alan has supposed below!   



As we worked on aspects of the decalogue cases that our organization has
defended, and the amici we have filed in other cases, I have become more and
more fascinated by the Jewish-Catholic-Protestant dichotomy drawn in some
quarters.

The Decalogue is set out in full in the scripture.

For purposes of catechesis, it is summarized in brief.

Various summarizations exist, but are all based on the same statement in full
of the Ten Words.

Is there any variation in the ten words amongst the versions?  No.

Is there any variation in the summarization of the ten words?  Yes, a
small amount.

Is there a difference of significance?  Not at all.

Consider this example:  Mom tells little Johnny:  go potty, wash your
hands and face, brush your teeth, and go to bed.  Some variation in the
order of the instructions and the execution of them leads to unfortunate
consequences, for example, if Johnny waits till he's in bed to go potty. 
But the ten words don't work that way.  And there is no dispute over the
text from which the summarizations are drawn.  So, there really is no
"there" there in the teapot tempest over which version will be
used.  

Jim "Do you have any other arguments?" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ






___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases









Well for starters, the Orden monument left
out the words “who took you out of Egypt” an omission which makes
sense on two Protestant assumptions.

1. The sentence beginning “I am”
is not a commandment and the phrase who took you out of Egypt has no
normative content.

2. The commandments are universal in
import, and not directed solely at Israel. See Mathew 19

Jews reject both assumptions. Hence the way
the Orden monument inescapably casts the commandments amounts to a repudiation
of Jewish teaching. And, of course, the focus on the commandments as such is
rooted in a Christian rejection of the totality of the law. 

Marc stern

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams case
and the Ten Commandments cases



 





In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more
than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments.

<>There are significant differences in numbering the
commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are
important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant
theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it
encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial
differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians
seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or
as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but
not its totality. I spell out these differences in  an amicus brief in
Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming
Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had
a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago.







Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of
fact.  The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. 






 





And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move
away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move
toward "Finding Meaning" in those commands, differences arise. 
But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews,
Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.





 





At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt
for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be
found.  But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you
get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when
the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision.





 





Jim Henderson





Senior Counsel





ACLJ








___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-16 Thread RJLipkin




I want to second Ed 
Braton's thoughtful post, and inquire of anyone who knows whether the laws, 
rules, customs of the Jews prior to the acquisition of the Ten Commandments 
included prohibitions against murder and theft, for example.  If the 
answer is yes then all those who agree with Robert Bork's remark, and I'm 
paraphrasing perhaps unfaithfully, that liberal society lives off the moral 
capital of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are historically inaccurate. 
Indeed, it opens up the anthropological question whether the Judeo-Christian 
religious tradition lives off the moral capital of prior secular societies 
if any existed, or prior pagan societies.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
 
 
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

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

Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments.
<>There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago.
Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact. The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are.
And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward "Finding Meaning" in those commands, differences arise. But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.
At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found. But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

Professor Steven Greene has an article about that very point in 14
Journal of Law and religion 525.The Orden court made the point about the
ten commandments as the foundation of American Law without citation of
supporting authority-legal or historical. Justice Rehnquist did the same
in his dissent from denial of cert in City of Elkhart v. Book,532 u.s.
1059
Marc Stern

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:38 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

I must say, as it concerns the 10 commandments issue, that I'm not so 
concerned about the question of which text of the 10 commandments one 
uses as I am the question of why anyone rationally believes that they 
form the "basis of our laws" in the first place. At least 6 of the 10 
commandments would be entirely unconstitutional if turned into laws in 
this country, including all of the first five which are exclusively 
religious proclamations (thou shalt have no other gods before me, no 
graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy and 
honoring thy mother and father, and "coveting" they neighbor's stuff). A

7th (thou shalt not commit adultery) would probably be unconstitutional 
under Lawrence, and is not in our system a legitimate law (though 
adultery is obviously wrong, it's not a criminal matter but a personal 
one). An 8th (not bearing false witness) can be made into law in some 
circumstances, such as perjury or libel, but not as a generalized rule. 
Only the injunctions against murder and theft are clearly a part of the 
law in the US and clearly constitutional as a general rule, and those 
laws are universal to all societies regardless of whether they've even 
heard of the Ten Commandments because no society could survive without 
them.

I've never understood this often repeated cliche that our laws are based

on the ten commandments when at least 6 or the 10 are entirely forbidden

to be laws at all under our constitutional system. And in all the years 
I've discussed this with people, I've never gotten a coherent answer to 
that argument. I don't think most people who make the initial argument 
even bother to think about it at all, it's just an empty truism.

Ed Brayton
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-16 Thread Ed Brayton

I must say, as it concerns the 10 commandments issue, that I'm not so 
concerned about the question of which text of the 10 commandments one 
uses as I am the question of why anyone rationally believes that they 
form the "basis of our laws" in the first place. At least 6 of the 10 
commandments would be entirely unconstitutional if turned into laws in 
this country, including all of the first five which are exclusively 
religious proclamations (thou shalt have no other gods before me, no 
graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy and 
honoring thy mother and father, and "coveting" they neighbor's stuff). A 
7th (thou shalt not commit adultery) would probably be unconstitutional 
under Lawrence, and is not in our system a legitimate law (though 
adultery is obviously wrong, it's not a criminal matter but a personal 
one). An 8th (not bearing false witness) can be made into law in some 
circumstances, such as perjury or libel, but not as a generalized rule. 
Only the injunctions against murder and theft are clearly a part of the 
law in the US and clearly constitutional as a general rule, and those 
laws are universal to all societies regardless of whether they've even 
heard of the Ten Commandments because no society could survive without 
them.

I've never understood this often repeated cliche that our laws are based 
on the ten commandments when at least 6 or the 10 are entirely forbidden 
to be laws at all under our constitutional system. And in all the years 
I've discussed this with people, I've never gotten a coherent answer to 
that argument. I don't think most people who make the initial argument 
even bother to think about it at all, it's just an empty truism.

Ed Brayton
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases









This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of
fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten
Commandments.

<>There are significant differences
in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones.
There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with
significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does
it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences
in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think,
the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think
something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality.
I spell out these differences in  an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor
Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing
out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional
commentaries a few years ago.

All of this says nothing of the rights of
atheists or non-Judeo _Christian faiths. 

Marc Stern 

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
7:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams case
and the Ten Commandments cases



 

In a message dated 12/15/2004 4:52:10 PM Eastern Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead
and gone.
If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only
version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical
Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can
display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is
"contextualized"
with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.
Constitution, for
example.

And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire
would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports
and that Alan has supposed below!   



As we worked on aspects of the decalogue cases that our organization has
defended, and the amici we have filed in other cases, I have become more and
more fascinated by the Jewish-Catholic-Protestant dichotomy drawn in some quarters.

The Decalogue is set out in full in the scripture.

For purposes of catechesis, it is summarized in brief.

Various summarizations exist, but are all based on the same statement in full
of the Ten Words.

Is there any variation in the ten words amongst the versions?  No.

Is there any variation in the summarization of the ten words?  Yes, a
small amount.

Is there a difference of significance?  Not at all.

Consider this example:  Mom tells little Johnny:  go potty, wash your
hands and face, brush your teeth, and go to bed.  Some variation in the
order of the instructions and the execution of them leads to unfortunate
consequences, for example, if Johnny waits till he's in bed to go potty. 
But the ten words don't work that way.  And there is no dispute over the
text from which the summarizations are drawn.  So, there really is no
"there" there in the teapot tempest over which version will be
used.  

Jim "Do you have any other arguments?" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ






___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

In a message dated 12/15/2004 4:52:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead and gone.
If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only
version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical
Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can
display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is "contextualized"
with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for
example.

And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire
would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports
and that Alan has supposed below!

As we worked on aspects of the decalogue cases that our organization has defended, and the amici we have filed in other cases, I have become more and more fascinated by the Jewish-Catholic-Protestant dichotomy drawn in some quarters.

The Decalogue is set out in full in the scripture.

For purposes of catechesis, it is summarized in brief.

Various summarizations exist, but are all based on the same statement in full of the Ten Words.

Is there any variation in the ten words amongst the versions? No.

Is there any variation in the summarization of the ten words? Yes, a small amount.

Is there a difference of significance? Not at all.

Consider this example: Mom tells little Johnny: go potty, wash your hands and face, brush your teeth, and go to bed. Some variation in the order of the instructions and the execution of them leads to unfortunate consequences, for example, if Johnny waits till he's in bed to go potty. But the ten words don't work that way. And there is no dispute over the text from which the summarizations are drawn. So, there really is no "there" there in the teapot tempest over which version will be used.

Jim "Do you have any other arguments?" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ

___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

In a message dated 12/15/2004 4:53:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

No, that isnât the rub.  There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen.

Precisely.  And there's nothing in the EC that speaks to teaching about religion.

Jim "Copies of the Constitution Available for Your Use" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









Actually, it is too burdensome because far
too many teachers would refuse to utter those words.  Would  Williams ever say
those words? 

 

-Original Message-
From: A.E. Brownstein
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday,
 December 10, 2004 5:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 

I'm not sure that I understand the point here. Is it
that it is acceptable for public school teachers to teach religious beliefs
such as the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact? 

Or is it that it is too burdensome for teachers to be "saddled" with
the responsibility of telling their students when a class discusses religion
that "In the United States, we live under a constitutional system
committed to religious liberty. Americans believe in many different religious
faiths and the tenets of these faiths are often inconsistent with each
other.  Adherence to religious beliefs is a matter left to individuals and
faith communities to decide for themselves.  That is why the government
and the public schools do not tell people what religion, if any, they should
follow. When we study religion in this class, we are studying what different
people believe; not what people should believe. Our government and our public
schools have no authority to declare religious truth." 

Alan Brownstein







At 04:18 PM 12/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:



In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:14:11 PM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

He teaches the resurrection as historical fact,
even though it is   a religious belief which I and millions of other
Americans deny. 

Marc raises an interesting point here.  Because
he has a belief about something that may be (or may not) a fact, he disputes
the propriety of Mr. Williams' teaching about the incident as a fact. 
>From that leap, I suppose, is derived the expurgation principle by which every
fact of religious significance becomes suspect as an instructional device.
 
Will we really saddle our public school teachers with the burden of
saying:  "of course, some people do not agree that this fact is true,
some people specifically state that the circumstances described by this fact
are false, some people find the assertion of this fact as a true historical
incident an affront to them personally because they do not hold to that fact
and to their religious faith." ??
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-15 Thread Paul Finkelman

Michael, you lose!
The case in Texas has a Lutheran version of the 10 C on a monument put 
up by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles (a Minn. based organization, 
hence the Lutheran version, although with a King James Translation). 
There are hundreds of these FAO monuments around the country, but up in 
the 1950s and 1960s.  They were sponsored by the Eagles and funded 
heavily by that great Ten Commandments specialist Cecil B. DeMille

The Alabama monument that Chief Jutice Moore put up, and the Ten. C.'s 
put up that led to the  Ky. case now before the court also used King 
James translation. T hey have  traditional non-Lutheran Protestant 
numbering scheme.

Paul Finkelman
Newsom Michael wrote:
Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead and gone.
If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only
version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical
Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can
display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is "contextualized"
with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for
example.
And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire
would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports
and that Alan has supposed below!   

-Original Message-
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

As I was reading the SG's brief in McCreary, I was struck by the
similarity 
of the arguments offered in the brief to justify the Ten Commandments 
display and the arguments offered by list members to support Williams' 
teaching materials. The SG argues that the Ten Commandments display is 
constitutional because it communicates secular messages about the role
of 
religion in American history in general and the Ten Commandments 
contribution to our legal heritage in particular. Williams' supporters 
argue, if I understand them correctly, that lessons studying accounts of

the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection
of 
Jesus are permissible in public schools as part of the study of the role

that Christianity played in America's history and legal system.
Does it follow, then, that government may create displays portraying the
Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of 
Jesus and place them in prominent locations in schools and governmental 
buildings -- and justify doing so as for the same reason -- to
acknowledge 
the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system?

Would the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian at the time of
the 
founding of the U.S. negate any constitutional obligation on the part of

government to create displays portraying scenes important to other
faiths?
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
___
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.
 

--
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.

RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information .:.

2004-12-15 Thread Menard, Richard H.




Come 
on.  Are these tits and tats really what this list is for?  A little 
restraint goes a long way.

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Newsom 
  MichaelSent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:53 PMTo: Law 
  & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Steven Williams 
  Case - more factual information .:.
  
  No, that isn't the 
  rub.  There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or 
  oxygen.
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:53 
  PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more 
  factual information
   
  
  
  In a message dated 12/15/2004 
  3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Rather 
than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is 
not to try to "teach" religion in the public schools at 
all.
  
  Of course, one might try to teach 
  biology without discussing oxygen.  Can it be done?  Sure.  
  Should it be done?  That, my friend, is the rub.
  
   
  
  Jim 
  Henderson
  
  Senior 
  Counsel
  
  ACLJ

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations on 12/15/2004, 04:06:50 PM
-

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









No, that isn’t the rub.  There is nothing
like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004
3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 





In a message dated 12/15/2004
3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





Rather than saddling
teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to
“teach” religion in the public schools at all.







Of course, one might try to teach
biology without discussing oxygen.  Can it be done?  Sure. 
Should it be done?  That, my friend, is the rub.





 





Jim Henderson





Senior Counsel





ACLJ








___
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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead and gone.
If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only
version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical
Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can
display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is "contextualized"
with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for
example.

And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire
would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports
and that Alan has supposed below!   


-Original Message-
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

As I was reading the SG's brief in McCreary, I was struck by the
similarity 
of the arguments offered in the brief to justify the Ten Commandments 
display and the arguments offered by list members to support Williams' 
teaching materials. The SG argues that the Ten Commandments display is 
constitutional because it communicates secular messages about the role
of 
religion in American history in general and the Ten Commandments 
contribution to our legal heritage in particular. Williams' supporters 
argue, if I understand them correctly, that lessons studying accounts of

the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection
of 
Jesus are permissible in public schools as part of the study of the role

that Christianity played in America's history and legal system.

Does it follow, then, that government may create displays portraying the

Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of 
Jesus and place them in prominent locations in schools and governmental 
buildings -- and justify doing so as for the same reason -- to
acknowledge 
the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system?

Would the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian at the time of
the 
founding of the U.S. negate any constitutional obligation on the part of

government to create displays portraying scenes important to other
faiths?

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis

___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-15 Thread JMHACLJ




In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to âteachâ religion in the public schools at all.
Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing oxygen.  Can it be done?  Sure.  Should it be done?  That, my friend, is the rub.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









Rather than saddling teachers with a
burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to “teach”
religion in the public schools at all.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
4:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 





In a message dated 12/10/2004
1:14:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





He teaches the
resurrection as historical fact, even though it is   a religious
belief which I and millions of other Americans deny. 







Marc raises an interesting point
here.  Because he has a belief about something that may be (or may not) a
fact, he disputes the propriety of Mr. Williams' teaching about the
incident as a
fact.  From that leap, I suppose, is derived the expurgation principle by
which every fact of religious significance becomes suspect as an instructional
device.





 





Will we really saddle our public
school teachers with the burden of saying:  "of course, some people
do not agree that this fact is true, some people specifically state that the
circumstances described by this fact are false, some people find the assertion
of this fact as a true historical incident an affront to them personally
because they do not hold to that fact and to their religious faith." ??





 





Jim Henderson





Senior Counsel





ACLJ








___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information









Could you explain why liberals are wrong?

 

-Original Message-
From: Marc Stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
1:12 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 

.



Liberals are sometimes
suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are
wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise.:





 





 








___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-13 Thread Ed Brayton

Even more interesting in that story, I think, are two things. First, a
spokesman for the school district points out that the 5th grade
textbook that Mr. Williams uses contains a full copy of the Declaration
of Independence. That alone shows that the ADF's press release titled
"Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom" was the sort of
dishonest public relations nonsense that is common in this area. In
light of that, one would hope that Jim Henderson would not continue to
argue that the ADF's press release was honest. Obviously the
Declaration was never "banned from the classroom".

Second, there is the quote from Mr. Williams himself where he says, "My
agenda is to give my students an accurate representation of history."
One might be more likely to take that claim seriously if his handouts
did not contain numerous false quotations never said by the men they
are attributed to, and one entire document that is fraudulently
attributed to one of them. If his goal is accuracy, he's not doing a
very good job of achieving that goal.

Ed Brayton

Marty Lederman wrote:

Chip
Lupu is unable to post from home and asked that I forward this to the
list:
NPR
ran a story yesterday on the Williams case. The link is here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4224577. According to the story, the
principal had received many complaints about Williams over the past
year or more, and the complaints had come from many different parents.
Parents interviewed in the story said that Williams brought up God,
Jesus, and Christian principles in math, science, and other subjects in
addition to U.S. history, and that he sometimes did so many times per
day.

If that is an accurate description of Mr. Williams' behavior in a fifth
grade public school class, is it not obvious that the principal is
acting constitutionally and responsibly (I would describe it as "well
within the zone of Establishment Clause discretion") in monitoring Mr.
Williams' assignments? Eugene Volokh was exactly right last week when
he asserted that the relevant question here is NOT whether a particular
assignment is a violation of the Establishment Clause -- as you can
see, we can argue endlessly about the particulars of hypotheticals --
but rather whether, in light of all of the circumstances, the principal
acted within the constitution in looking over Mr. Williams' shoulder.
The idea that Williams has any sort of First Amendment right to insist
upon teaching in the ways described in the NPR program seems wholly
preposterous.

___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-13 Thread Steven Jamar

I've said it before; I'll say it again:  Don't cloud the issue with facts!
:)

NPR ran a story yesterday on the Williams case.  The link is here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4224577.  According to the story, the principal had received many complaints about Williams over the past year or more, and the complaints had come from many different parents. Parents interviewed in the story said that Williams brought up God, Jesus, and Christian principles in math, science, and other subjects in addition to U.S. history, and that he sometimes did so many times per day.

-- 
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 do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality."

Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-13 Thread Marty Lederman




Chip Lupu is 
unable to post from home and asked that I forward this to the 
list:
 
 
NPR ran a story 
yesterday on the Williams case.  The link is here:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4224577.  According to the story, the principal had 
received many complaints about Williams over the past year or more, and the 
complaints had come from many different parents. Parents interviewed in the 
story said that Williams brought up God, Jesus, and Christian principles in 
math, science, and other subjects in addition to U.S. history, and that he 
sometimes did so many times per day.If that is an accurate description 
of Mr. Williams' behavior in a fifth grade public school class, is it not 
obvious that the principal is acting constitutionally and responsibly (I would 
describe it as "well within the zone of Establishment Clause discretion") in 
monitoring Mr. Williams' assignments?  Eugene Volokh was exactly right last 
week when he asserted that the relevant question here is NOT whether a 
particular assignment is a violation of the Establishment Clause -- as you can 
see, we can argue endlessly about the particulars of hypotheticals -- but rather 
whether, in light of all of the circumstances, the principal acted within the 
constitution in looking over Mr. Williams' shoulder.  The idea that 
Williams has any sort of First Amendment right to insist upon teaching in the 
ways described in the NPR program seems wholly preposterous.Chip Lupu 
Ira C. LupuF. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of 
LawGeorge Washington University School of Law 2000 H St., NW 
Washington, DC 20052(202)994-7053 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:39 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more 
  factual information
  In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:16:46 PM 
  Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by 
the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief.  They seem well 
crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, 
important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection 
between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this 
Nation. I disagree that Mr. Williams' assignment sheet, 
  if authentic, is a "well crafted" history lesson for reasons already 
  explicated in detail by others, particularly Ed Brayton.  I also agree 
  with all those who have stated that if the assignment sheet is authentic, Mr. 
  Williams does not have much of a case.But, the hypothetical issue 
  Marty Lederman framed at the beginning of the week ("not whether the school 
  may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must") 
  is a much closer question.And, I agree with Jim Henderson that Mr. 
  Williams' purported assignments to learn about Easter are similar to the 
  assignments to learn about Islam used by the Byron Union School District that 
  were upheld last year by a federal judge in the Northern District of 
  California and are now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See, for example, the 
  amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit from the Californian School Boards And 
  National School Boards Associations in pdf format 
  at:http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=470&DID=34136And, 
  finally, I also agree with Jim Henderson that there is nothing per se 
  unconstitutional about being a bad history teacher, about teaching only one 
  side of a historical controversy, or even about teaching bogus history. If Mr. 
  Williams were teaching only the viewpoint that Ronald Reagan was responsible 
  for the fall of the Soviet Union or if Mr. Williams were using bogus evidence 
  to deny the Holocaust, he'd be a bad teacher, but there's no Establishment 
  Clause issue.The subject about which Mr. Williams is teaching, 
  however, is the historical relationship between the US government and religion 
  ("the role of religion at the nation's founding" and "the reasons for the 
  Establishment Clause in the First Amendment" according to paragraph 41 of his 
  complaint), making the case a kind of "bank shot" endorsement case. Mr. 
  Williams isn't so much directly endorsing religion as a state agent today 
  (unless such facts come out), but, he is using one-sided and possibly bogus 
  evidence to teach that the US government endorsed Christianity in the past. 
  Williams' purported assignment sheet uses dubious sources to support the 
  contentions that the US Constitution is "only for a moral and religious 
  people" and the US government was "founded on Christian principles." I expect 
  the "excerpted" sources listed in paragraph 40 of Williams' complaint will 
  turn out to be simila

Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread EDarr1776

In a message dated 12/10/2004 4:50:07 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I'm not sure that I understand the point here. Is it that it is acceptable for public school teachers to teach religious beliefs such as the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact? 

Or is it that it is too burdensome for teachers to be "saddled" with the responsibility of telling their students when a class discusses religion that "In the United States, we live under a constitutional system committed to religious liberty. Americans believe in many different religious faiths and the tenets of these faiths are often inconsistent with each other.  Adherence to religious beliefs is a matter left to individuals and faith communities to decide for themselves.  That is why the government and the public schools do not tell people what religion, if any, they should follow. When we study religion in this class, we are studying what different people believe; not what people should believe. Our government and our public schools have no authority to declare religious truth." 

Alan Brownstein


Just making a quick check, I can't find that the assignment on Easter meets any of the national standards urged under the various federal acts, nor does it meet any of the standards we have in Texas.  

Is there any argument that the assignment meets any state's standards?  Can we see the standards?

Ed Darrell
Dallas
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread AAsch

In a message dated 12/11/2004 2:44:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Wouldn't all of this "balancing" have to be prediated on showing that Jefferson and (sometimes) Madison are representative of the founders' views?  This is not at all obvious, especially on the question of religion.  As judges are notoriously bad historians, I'm not sure that this is such an easy case (or, perhaps that quality is what might make it easy for them).
Richard Dougherty


I'm not saying that the John Adams quote from Mr. Williams' purported assignment sheet should be replaced by quotes from Jefferson or Madison as more "representative of the founders' views." I don't think there is a single "representative of the founders' views." Not only do their views conflict with each other, but, as I pointed out, Madison's view of the constitutionality of presidential religious proclamations is contradicted by his own actions. That's why I generally don't find original intent arguments to be persuasive, but that's a different subject...

By "balancing," I mean that instead of teaching only one side of the controversy, Mr. Williams should teach the controversy. And, I'm saying that while one-sided history teaching is generally not a constitutional issue, when the subject being taught is "the role of religion at the nation's founding" and "the reasons for the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment," there are First Amendment concerns. It's just as problematic for a public school teacher to say the US government endorsed Christianity as it is for the teacher to say the US government endorses Christianity. 

By the way, I'm not claiming to be a historian or political scientist, certainly not on par with someone responsible for "Thomas Jefferson and the Rule of Law: Executive Power and American Constitutionalism." I'm just working off the strength of a BA in history from Yale that's more than a dozen years old. I hope that doesn't make me a "bad historian."

Allen Asch
erstwhile ACLU cooperating attorney
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread Richard Dougherty

Wouldn't all of this "balancing" have to be prediated on showing that Jefferson 
and (sometimes) Madison are representative of the founders' views?  This is not 
at all obvious, especially on the question of religion.  As judges are 
notoriously bad historians, I'm not sure that this is such an easy case (or, 
perhaps that quality is what might make it easy for them).
Richard Dougherty

-- Original Message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:39:15 EST

>In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:16:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the 
>> assertion that these assignments inculcate belief.  They seem well crafted 
>> to guide 
>> a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects 
>> of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian 
>> religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. 
>
>I disagree that Mr. Williams' assignment sheet, if authentic, is a "well 
>crafted" history lesson for reasons already explicated in detail by others, 
>particularly Ed Brayton.  I also agree with all those who have stated that if 
>the 
>assignment sheet is authentic, Mr. Williams does not have much of a case.
>
>But, the hypothetical issue Marty Lederman framed at the beginning of the 
>week ("not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of 
>teaching, but whether it must") is a much closer question.
>
>And, I agree with Jim Henderson that Mr. Williams' purported assignments to 
>learn about Easter are similar to the assignments to learn about Islam used by 
>the Byron Union School District that were upheld last year by a federal judge 
>in the Northern District of California and are now on appeal to the Ninth 
>Circuit. See, for example, the amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit from the 
>Californian School Boards And National School Boards Associations in pdf 
>format at:
>
>http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=470&DID=34136
>
>And, finally, I also agree with Jim Henderson that there is nothing per se 
>unconstitutional about being a bad history teacher, about teaching only one 
>side 
>of a historical controversy, or even about teaching bogus history. If Mr. 
>Williams were teaching only the viewpoint that Ronald Reagan was responsible 
>for 
>the fall of the Soviet Union or if Mr. Williams were using bogus evidence to 
>deny the Holocaust, he'd be a bad teacher, but there's no Establishment Clause 
>issue.
>
>The subject about which Mr. Williams is teaching, however, is the historical 
>relationship between the US government and religion ("the role of religion at 
>the nation's founding" and "the reasons for the Establishment Clause in the 
>First Amendment" according to paragraph 41 of his complaint), making the case 
>a 
>kind of "bank shot" endorsement case. Mr. Williams isn't so much directly 
>endorsing religion as a state agent today (unless such facts come out), but, 
>he is 
>using one-sided and possibly bogus evidence to teach that the US government 
>endorsed Christianity in the past. Williams' purported assignment sheet uses 
>dubious sources to support the contentions that the US Constitution is "only 
>for 
>a moral and religious people" and the US government was "founded on Christian 
>principles." I expect the "excerpted" sources listed in paragraph 40 of 
>Williams' complaint will turn out to be similarly dubious and tendentious.
>
>A more balanced debate on the subject could well be a valid history lesson in 
>a public school, though it may be overly ambitious for the fifth grade. The 
>study of the claim that our law is based on Christian principles could include 
>Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in which he argues "from the 
>settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that 
>system of 
>religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet 
>Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the 
>common 
>law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely 
>affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that 
>Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." See this 
>address:
>
>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html
>
>Or, a balanced approach could include many other statements Jefferson made 
>about Christianity like "And the day will come when the mystical generation of 
>Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be 
>classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." 
>See 
>this address:
>
>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html
>
>Maybe Williams' distribution of GW Bush's National Prayer Day proclamation 
>could be balanced with Madison's argument that such preside

Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread AAsch

In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:16:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief.  They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. 

I disagree that Mr. Williams' assignment sheet, if authentic, is a "well crafted" history lesson for reasons already explicated in detail by others, particularly Ed Brayton.  I also agree with all those who have stated that if the assignment sheet is authentic, Mr. Williams does not have much of a case.

But, the hypothetical issue Marty Lederman framed at the beginning of the week ("not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must") is a much closer question.

And, I agree with Jim Henderson that Mr. Williams' purported assignments to learn about Easter are similar to the assignments to learn about Islam used by the Byron Union School District that were upheld last year by a federal judge in the Northern District of California and are now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See, for example, the amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit from the Californian School Boards And National School Boards Associations in pdf format at:

http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=470&DID=34136

And, finally, I also agree with Jim Henderson that there is nothing per se unconstitutional about being a bad history teacher, about teaching only one side of a historical controversy, or even about teaching bogus history. If Mr. Williams were teaching only the viewpoint that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union or if Mr. Williams were using bogus evidence to deny the Holocaust, he'd be a bad teacher, but there's no Establishment Clause issue.

The subject about which Mr. Williams is teaching, however, is the historical relationship between the US government and religion ("the role of religion at the nation's founding" and "the reasons for the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment" according to paragraph 41 of his complaint), making the case a kind of "bank shot" endorsement case. Mr. Williams isn't so much directly endorsing religion as a state agent today (unless such facts come out), but, he is using one-sided and possibly bogus evidence to teach that the US government endorsed Christianity in the past. Williams' purported assignment sheet uses dubious sources to support the contentions that the US Constitution is "only for a moral and religious people" and the US government was "founded on Christian principles." I expect the "excerpted" sources listed in paragraph 40 of Williams' complaint will turn out to be similarly dubious and tendentious.

A more balanced debate on the subject could well be a valid history lesson in a public school, though it may be overly ambitious for the fifth grade. The study of the claim that our law is based on Christian principles could include Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in which he argues "from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." See this address:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html

Or, a balanced approach could include many other statements Jefferson made about Christianity like "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." See this address:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html

Maybe Williams' distribution of GW Bush's National Prayer Day proclamation could be balanced with Madison's argument that such presidential proclamations should be unconstitutional (or maybe just contrast Madison's argument against his own religious proclamations as president). See this address:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_livingston.html

Or, instead of tendentious excerpts, Williams could just supply all the documents available at this address:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html

Thus, though I agree with Jim Henderson that being a bad history teacher creates no constitutional issue "unless some standard can be identified that embodies the concerns of the First Amendment," when the subject being taught is the relationship between the US government and religion, Williams' one-sided, bogus approach does create ju

Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread Steven Jamar

I like Prof. Levinson's hypo. Here's another one:
Under Islam, Jesus is believed to have been born of the Virgin Mary and
is considered a holy prophet. Read the Koran and other Islamic
religion sources and contrast this view to the Christian view of Jesus
as Messiah.

On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 02:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote:
Imagine the following assignment by a Jewish teacher to his class in
World History two weeks before Easter (when, it so happens, the
syllabus
for the course is treating the Holocaust):

The account of Jesus's trial and subsequent punishment as set out in
the
Christian Gospels is viewed by many historians and theologians as a
central source of anti-Semitism and the cause of persecution and,
indeed, massacre, of Jews throughout the ages. Please read the various
accounts of Jesus's trial in the four Gospels and indicate why someone
might view them as anti-Semitic. (Is there significant variation among
the Gospels in this regard?)

Would anyone on this list who supports Mr. Williams have any problems
with this assignment?

--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime,
Therefore, we are saved by hope.
Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate
context of history;
Therefore, we are saved by faith.
Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.
Therefore, we are saved by love.
No virtuous act is quite a virtuous from the standpoint of our friend
or foe as from our own;
Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness.

Reinhold Neibuhr
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread EDarr1776

In a message dated 12/10/2004 9:29:46 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


In a message dated 12/10/2004 6:14:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Isn't it absolutely compelled that public school teachers say something like this?  I would be outraged if a teacher presented as "fact" the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai or, for that matter, the Exodus from Egypt, given that there is, alas, not the slightest evidence for the presence of Hebrews in Egypt or archeological artifacts of a Hebrew/Jewish presence in Sinai.  (This doesn't prevent me from happily celebrating the Exodus at seder every spring, though one of the questions raised in the discussion has been how one comes to terms with the lack of evidence.)

To which fact sets must this disclaimer be appended?  No living civil war veterans, nor I think any widow thereof, so any fact dating from approximately the Civil War or before?

Facts not visually captured by even early daguerrotype photography?  Subject only to recall by then contemporaries?

Every historical "fact" predating our own consciousness?

I think that approach is silly.  And it is not called for by anything in the Constitution or its amendments.  But if there is a principle that it embodies or reflects and it can be articulated that would be helpful.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ  


Then the issue one for evidence analysis, not Constitutional analysis.  I think most courts could or would take judicial note of the occurrence of the American Civil War, or of the Constitution (the document still exists), the life of Washington (we have writings in his hand), the life of Napoleon, etc., etc.  The remaining physical evidence of the life of Alexander the Great is sparse, but still there.  

It seems to me that the argument for this set of lesson plans seems grounded on a rejection of usual evidence standards.  I'd be nervous defending that, even apart from the fact that the lesson plan is wholly out of bounds for any U.S. history standards I can find.

Ed Darrell
Dallas
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread EDarr1776

In a message dated 12/10/2004 11:18:35 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (about the assignment to study Easter):


*John Adams wrote, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and 
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any 
other." He also wrote a paper called, "American Independence was 
Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity." Write a one page report 
on why he felt so strongly that this nation should be founded on 
Christian principles and quote from primary sources.



What would be the reaction of the teacher were a student to turn in Adams' denial of the religious view the teacher assumes here, in Adams' exchanges with Jefferson?  

Did any student do that?

Ed Darrell
Dallas
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread Alan Leigh Armstrong

In California 5th grade is US history.
6th grade is from the beginning of history to the fall of Rome.
7th grade goes on from the fall of Rome. Some discussion of Islam is
appropriate for 7th grade.

My wife teaches 6th grade. For the Egypt part, they mummify chicken
legs. One year, those students and parents who were willing, went to
see Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat.

Alan
Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family & Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.alanarmstrong.com
KE6LLN
On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Ed Brayton wrote:

Steven Jamar wrote:
Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and
presentation.
Mr. Williams teaches 5th grade.
Ed Brayton
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-11 Thread JMHACLJ




In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:44:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that the only relevant question in terms of this lawsuit is whether any of those assignments are properly given by this teacher to his students, not whether they might hypothetically be okay in a different set of circumstances. I say they clearly are not.

Well, why?  I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief.  They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. 
 
The only way that such dogmatic rejections of the propriety of Mr. Williams' easter assignment could be justified is if no assignment involving the reading of the Easter story from the Bible may be made in a public school, if no writing assignment ever may require a student to "respond" to themes such as sacrifice, resurrection, hope, new life.  I realize that I am asking persons who challenge the propriety of this assignment sheet to offer some demonstration of its unconstitutionality beyond the bare assertion of it; and I realize that such calls for proof often are charged by others as a dodge for real analysis.  But I am truly perplexed.  This assignment sheet does not, to my reading of it, do anything other that provide the means for a student to learn about these subjects.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information





It seems to me that the only relevant question in terms of this lawsuit
is whether any of those assignments are properly given by this teacher
to his students, not whether they might hypothetically be okay in a
different set of circumstances. I say they clearly are not. And I
didn't take Marc's remarks as humorous at all. I think he's right. If
that handout is indicative of the supplemental material that he was
passing out to his students, I predict, as Marc did, that they will
lose in court and probably lose fairly decisively and may well end up
having to pay the costs of the school district in defending itself. 

Ed Brayton

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Marc's humorous riposte provides, I suppose, all the analysis
that he thinks the Williams' assignment justifies.  Having doubts,
after laboring in the woodshed from time to time, that such humorous
but otherwise pointless posts add anything of substance to the
discussion, I will ask those who care to respond to it this question:
   
  Is there any circumstance in the American public schooling
context in which any of these assignments may properly be given to
students?  If there are, what are they?  If there are not, why not?  
   
  Jim Henderson
  Senior Counsel
  ACLJ
  

___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

In a message dated 12/10/2004 4:28:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Student writes "only a person of very low intelligence could believe this.  The works studied are less realistic than the Wizard of Oz and contemptible."  Only the worst form of moral monstr could believe that people who did believe in him deserve to be damned forever."  What grade.  Does it matter whether the teacher thinks the student got Christianity right?  Who determines what constitutes getting Christianity right?

If the assignment is to write an opinion piece, then that is the teacher's problem, as I indicated in an earlier post.  If the syllabus makes relevant to the grading performance on standards of grammar and composition, those factors can be given their proper weight, but the opinion expressed, however infantile and uninformed, should not be downgraded because of the view expressed.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

In a message dated 12/10/2004 5:18:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But a corollary to
the view that the state may not have opinions about the merits of Luke
is that the state may not have opinions about what is an appropriate
analysis of the book of Luke.


Nothing in the Constitution requires this approach.  Why may not a teacher evaluate adherence to rules of grammar, punctuation, style, citation, etc., in grading an analytic treatment of Luke, while specifically and scrupulously eschewing any grade-flation (up or down) based upon adherence to or rejection a system of religious faith to which Luke may be relevant?

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

In a message dated 12/10/2004 5:50:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I'm not sure that I understand the point here. Is it that it is acceptable for public school teachers to teach religious beliefs such as the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact? 


Alan, this is a nice twist of approach but simply recharacterizing something that IS a fact AS a belief cannot possible be the basis for imposing this burdensome nonsense on the instructional program.  It is a historically verifiable fact, employing then contemporary sources, that Abraham Lincoln put forward the possibility that the bloodletting of the Civil War was a judgment of God on the national sin of the peculiar institution.  Because this fact relates to a belief, do the constitutional hackles rise?

What about other facts that rub against beliefs?  Martin Luther King certainly believed that all men are created equal.  Must the history teacher caution students that not everyone believes in God, or in creators, if he references the views of Dr. King?

Again, I think, unless some standard can be identified that embodies the concerns of the First Amendment, these burdensome additions to the teacher's desk are unjustifiable.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

In a message dated 12/10/2004 6:14:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Isn't it absolutely compelled that public school teachers say something like this?  I would be outraged if a teacher presented as "fact" the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai or, for that matter, the Exodus from Egypt, given that there is, alas, not the slightest evidence for the presence of Hebrews in Egypt or archeological artifacts of a Hebrew/Jewish presence in Sinai.  (This doesn't prevent me from happily celebrating the Exodus at seder every spring, though one of the questions raised in the discussion has been how one comes to terms with the lack of evidence.)

To which fact sets must this disclaimer be appended?  No living civil war veterans, nor I think any widow thereof, so any fact dating from approximately the Civil War or before?

Facts not visually captured by even early daguerrotype photography?  Subject only to recall by then contemporaries?

Every historical "fact" predating our own consciousness?

I think that approach is silly.  And it is not called for by anything in the Constitution or its amendments.  But if there is a principle that it embodies or reflects and it can be articulated that would be helpful.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ  
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Sanford Levinson




Jim Henderson asks, I 
think rhetorically,
Will we really saddle our public school teachers with the burden of 
saying:  "of course, some people do not agree that this fact is true, some 
people specifically state that the circumstances described by this fact are 
false, some people find the assertion of this fact as a true historical incident 
an affront to them personally because they do not hold to that fact and to their 
religious faith." ??
 
 
Isn't it absolutely compelled that public 
school teachers say something like this?  I would be outraged if a teacher 
presented as "fact" the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai 
or, for that matter, the Exodus from Egypt, given that there is, alas, not the 
slightest evidence for the presence of Hebrews in Egypt or archeological 
artifacts of a Hebrew/Jewish presence in Sinai.  (This doesn't prevent me 
from happily celebrating the Exodus at seder every spring, though one of the 
questions raised in the discussion has been how one comes to terms with the lack 
of evidence.)
 
sandy
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread A.E. Brownstein



I'm not sure that I understand the point here. Is it that it is
acceptable for public school teachers to teach religious beliefs such as
the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact? 
Or is it that it is too burdensome for teachers to be "saddled"
with the responsibility of telling their students when a class discusses
religion that "In the United States, we live under a constitutional
system committed to religious liberty. Americans believe in many
different religious faiths and the tenets of these faiths are often
inconsistent with each other.  Adherence to religious beliefs is a
matter left to individuals and faith communities to decide for
themselves.  That is why the government and the public schools do
not tell people what religion, if any, they should follow. When we study
religion in this class, we are studying what different people believe;
not what people should believe. Our government and our public schools
have no authority to declare religious truth." 
Alan Brownstein



At 04:18 PM 12/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2004
1:14:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


He teaches the resurrection
as historical fact, even though it is   a religious belief
which I and millions of other Americans deny. 

Marc raises an interesting point here.  Because he has a belief
about something that may be (or may not) a fact, he disputes the
propriety of Mr. Williams' teaching about the incident as a
fact.  From that leap, I suppose, is derived the expurgation
principle by which every fact of religious significance becomes suspect
as an instructional device.
 
Will we really saddle our public school teachers with the burden of
saying:  "of course, some people do not agree that this fact is
true, some people specifically state that the circumstances described by
this fact are false, some people find the assertion of this fact as a
true historical incident an affront to them personally because they do
not hold to that fact and to their religious faith." ??
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Mark Graber

To begin with, at least some of the questions asked for interpretation
and personal opinions.  But

1. Does Jewish law require keeping kosher.

2. May orthodox women pray at the Western Wall. etc?

MAG

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/10/04 5:23 PM >>>
at the edges, maybe.  but students are being taught the essay form, not 
the substance.  hence they can be graded by computer -- are at many 
colleges now are, from what I read.

and there are forms of getting it right based on what is being 
presented.  what are the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism -- you might phrase 
them a bit differently than i would, but if you didn't at least get the 
substance mostly right, you would be missing it.  It is a different 
thing to ask for an evaluation -- if the question is give a personal 
evaluation of something, then it is harder to grade other than on 
following the format given.
so are you asking for data, judgment, personal opinion, response based 
on other authorities?

sure, there will always be edges.  but that doesn't make the entire 
plane invisible


___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Brian Landsberg

California 5th grade curriculum appears at
.
It's hard to fit the assignment here into the state mandated
framework.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/10/2004 2:13:48 PM >>>
In California 5th grade is US history.

6th grade is from the beginning of history to the fall of Rome.

7th grade goes on from the fall of Rome. Some discussion of Islam is 
appropriate for 7th grade.

My wife teaches 6th grade. For the Egypt part, they mummify chicken 
legs. One year, those students and parents who were willing, went to 
see Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat.

Alan

Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family & Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147   Fax 714 375 1149
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.alanarmstrong.com 
KE6LLN
On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Ed Brayton wrote:

>
>
> Steven Jamar wrote:
>
>> Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and 
>> presentation.
>
> Mr. Williams teaches 5th grade.
>
> Ed Brayton
> ___
> 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.
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:44:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  It seems to me that the only relevant question in terms
of this lawsuit is whether any of those assignments are properly given
by this teacher to his students, not whether they might hypothetically
be okay in a different set of circumstances. I say they clearly are not.
  
  
  Well, why?  I looked over each of these assignments and I am
dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. 
They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of,
and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and
about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation
and progress of this Nation
  

Well let's look at some of the assignments, and bear in mind that the
context is the teaching of American history:

"Read the Easter story in the bible. Start reading Luke, chapter 22 and
continue to the end of the book of Luke. Write a response to some of
the themes in the Easter story of the bible: betrayal, sacrifice,
resurrection, love, hope, new life. Write a response to any of the
themes in the story using references from the bible and how they apply
to our culture today. Make a diorama of a scene from the story and
attach your written response."

Why would this in any way help one teach about American history? You
certainly can teach effectively about the role that Christianity played
in motivating certain actions taken in American history without
exploring the literary themes of the Passion story. Indeed, delving
that deeply into those themes would only distract from teaching actual
history. At the very least, it's not age-appropriate. Do you really
think that a 5th grader is capable of writing a paper on how the
resurrection theme applies to modern culture? That's the type of paper
one might write for a college-level literature class, not a 5th grade
history class. The connection to history is tenuous at very best, and
the assignment requires students to read the bible. I believe the
Supreme Court ruled against forced bible reading in 1963.

"Interview a Christian family that celebrates Easter and write about
what they do and why they do it. Write a summary of your interview and
give an oral presentation to the class on what you found using props
and anyhing appropriate to enhancing your presentation."

Again, where is the connection to history? The mere fact that many
Americans in the past were Christians does not justify requiring them
to know how modern people celebrate Easter. There's just no
relationship to the teaching of history. There may be contexts where
this assignment would be appropriate. In a high school level sociology
or comparative religion class where students are comparing different
traditions among the major religions or the role of ritual celebrations
in those religions, this could be appropriate. In a 5th grade level
history unit, it seems that the teacher is merely using the historical
fact that many Americans were Christians as an excuse to jump from the
teaching of history to the teaching of religion. Unless the assignment
has some direct bearing on the role of Easter traditions in American
history, and this one clearly does not, it's not appropriate.

"Review some of the famous teachings of Jesus Christ such as: the
Golden Rule, the Sermon on the Mount, and parable of the Good
Samaritan. Write a response to this teaching and how it is applied
today in our culture and examples of how it has shaped our nation.
Present a short oral presentation or skit to the class which
demonstrates what you learned."

Again, far too complex a question for a 5th grade student and, again,
it has no bearing on the teaching of history. I'd like to see someone
try to take, for instance, the parable of the Good Samaritan, or the
Sermon on the Mount, and tell us how this teaches us something
important about American history. Other than "some Americans in history
were Christians and Christians believe in the parable of the Good
Samaritan", there just isn't any connection to American history in this
question. There is no more connection in that than "Some Americans in
history ate beef, so discuss the role of beef in American history".

"You will pretend to be a newspaper reporter and you will need to
interview someone who works for a church near you. Ask them, what will
their church be doing to remember Jesus' death and resurrection? Why is
Easter important to them? Write a one page article based on your
interview."

This one has all the same problems as the ones above. There just isn't
any connection to the teaching of American history. Interviewing a
local church worker to find out how they're going to celebrate Easter
is not going to help them understand anything at all about American
history.

"John Adams wrote, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of an

Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

at the edges, maybe. but students are being taught the essay form, not the substance. hence they can be graded by computer -- are at many colleges now are, from what I read.

and there are forms of getting it right based on what is being presented. what are the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism -- you might phrase them a bit differently than i would, but if you didn't at least get the substance mostly right, you would be missing it. It is a different thing to ask for an evaluation -- if the question is give a personal evaluation of something, then it is harder to grade other than on following the format given.
so are you asking for data, judgment, personal opinion, response based on other authorities?

sure, there will always be edges. but that doesn't make the entire plane invisible

On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 05:16 PM, Mark Graber wrote:

But, and this is the less polemical point, what constitutes appropriate
analysis with quotes. And here is the modernist point, a reason, by the
way, that some members of this list think public schools unconstitution.
There is no neutral vantage point on which to do the grading. What
constitutes a legitimate range of opinions or well argued opinions on
the merits of the book of Luke (or on progressive taxation) are
inevitably depended on some theory of religion (or taxation). Now those
of us who think the state is entitled to have some (contestable)
opinions about taxation and teach them find no problem in claims that
the state may also have some (contestable) opinions about what are
reasonable opinions about taxation and teach them. But a corollary to
the view that the state may not have opinions about the merits of Luke
is that the state may not have opinions about what is an appropriate
analysis of the book of Luke.

MAG

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/10/04 5:10 PM >>>
Student writes "only a person of very low intelligence could believe
this. The works studied are less realistic than the Wizard of Oz and
contemptible." Only the worst form of moral monstr could believe that

people who did believe in him deserve to be damned forever." What
grade. Does it matter whether the teacher thinks the student got
Christianity right? Who determines what constitutes getting
Christianity right?

MAG.

If that is all the student wrote, the student gets an F. If that is the
conclusion after appropriate analysis with quotes, etc., then the grade
would be much higher.

Alan

Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family & Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.alanarmstrong.com
KE6LLN
On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Mark Graber wrote:

___
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.

"For all men of good will May 17, 1954, came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of enforced segregation. . . . It served to transform the fatigue of despair into the buoyancy of hope."

Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1960 on Brown v. Board of Education

___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Mark Graber

But, and this is the less polemical point, what constitutes appropriate
analysis with quotes.  And here is the modernist point, a reason, by the
way, that some members of this list think public schools unconstitution.
 There is no neutral vantage point on which to do the grading.  What
constitutes a legitimate range of opinions or well argued opinions on
the merits of the book of Luke (or on progressive taxation) are
inevitably depended on some theory of religion (or taxation).  Now those
of us who think the state is entitled to have some (contestable)
opinions about taxation and teach them find no problem in claims that
the state may also have some (contestable) opinions about what are
reasonable opinions about taxation and teach them.  But a corollary to
the view that the state may not have opinions about the merits of Luke
is that the state may not have opinions about what is an appropriate
analysis of the book of Luke.

MAG

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/10/04 5:10 PM >>>
> Student writes "only a person of very low intelligence could believe 
> this.  The works studied are less realistic than the Wizard of Oz and 
> contemptible."  Only the worst form of moral monstr could believe that

> people who did believe in him deserve to be damned forever."  What 
> grade.  Does it matter whether the teacher thinks the student got 
> Christianity right?  Who determines what constitutes getting 
> Christianity right?
>  
> MAG.

If that is all the student wrote, the student gets an F. If that is the 
conclusion after appropriate analysis with quotes, etc., then the grade 
would be much higher.

Alan

Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family & Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147   Fax 714 375 1149
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.alanarmstrong.com
KE6LLN
On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Mark Graber wrote:

___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Alan Leigh Armstrong

Student writes "only a person of very low intelligence could believe 
this.  The works studied are less realistic than the Wizard of Oz and 
contemptible."  Only the worst form of moral monstr could believe that 
people who did believe in him deserve to be damned forever."  What 
grade.  Does it matter whether the teacher thinks the student got 
Christianity right?  Who determines what constitutes getting 
Christianity right?
 
MAG.
If that is all the student wrote, the student gets an F. If that is the 
conclusion after appropriate analysis with quotes, etc., then the grade 
would be much higher.

Alan
Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family & Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite 225
Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006
714-375-1147   Fax 714 375 1149
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.alanarmstrong.com
KE6LLN
On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Mark Graber wrote:
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Mark Graber




Student writes 
"only a person of very low intelligence could believe this.  The works 
studied are less realistic than the Wizard of Oz and contemptible."  
Only the worst form of moral monstr could believe that people who did 
believe in him deserve to be damned forever."  What grade.  Does it 
matter whether the teacher thinks the student got Christianity right?  Who 
determines what constitutes getting Christianity right?
 
MAG.>>> 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/10/04 04:15PM >>>

In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:44:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that the only relevant question in terms of this 
  lawsuit is whether any of those assignments are properly given by this teacher 
  to his students, not whether they might hypothetically be okay in a different 
  set of circumstances. I say they clearly are not.

Well, why?  I looked over each of these assignments and I am 
dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief.  They 
seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning 
about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection 
between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this 
Nation. 
 
The only way that such dogmatic rejections of the propriety of Mr. 
Williams' easter assignment could be justified is if 
no assignment involving the reading of the Easter story from the 
Bible may be made in a public school, if no writing assignment ever may 
require a student to "respond" to themes such as sacrifice, resurrection, 
hope, new life.  I realize that I am asking persons who challenge the 
propriety of this assignment sheet to offer some demonstration of its 
unconstitutionality beyond the bare assertion of it; and I realize that such 
calls for proof often are charged by others as a dodge for real analysis.  
But I am truly perplexed.  This assignment sheet does not, to my reading of 
it, do anything other that provide the means for a student to learn about these 
subjects.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information




In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:14:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
He teaches the resurrection as historical fact, even though it is   a religious belief which I and millions of other Americans deny. 
Marc raises an interesting point here.  Because he has a belief about something that may be (or may not) a fact, he disputes the propriety of Mr. Williams' teaching about the incident as a fact.  From that leap, I suppose, is derived the expurgation principle by which every fact of religious significance becomes suspect as an instructional device.
 
Will we really saddle our public school teachers with the burden of saying:  "of course, some people do not agree that this fact is true, some people specifically state that the circumstances described by this fact are false, some people find the assertion of this fact as a true historical incident an affront to them personally because they do not hold to that fact and to their religious faith." ??
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information





Scarberry, Mark wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Perhaps we
should wait for confirmation that
the "Easter handout" is authentic before judging Mr. Williams based
on it. The source for it is a webpage that is very hostile to Mr.
Williams and
to the Alliance Defense Fund.
  

Yes, that's why I was sure to say "if it's authentic". The mere fact
that they disagree with Mr. Williams and the ADF is not reason in and
of itself to think it's not authentic, but it's best to be cautious.
There are other handouts that were part of the complaint, so we know
they are authentic, that contain fake or forged quotations and, quite
likely, at least one entirely forged document and perhaps two. I'm
awaiting response from a noted Washington scholar on the authenticity
of the "George Washington Prayer Journal". It was apparently only
discovered some 30 years ago and several Washington scholars have
evidently determined that it is a forgery. It also is not part of the
Library of Congress collection of Washington's writings and documents.
And I'm reasonably sure that another document quoted, attributed to
John Adams, is also fraudulent. At least two of the isolated quotes,
one from Washington and one from Jefferson, are well known to be false
quotations. 

At any rate, the question posed was if that handout is authentic,
doesn't it undermine the plaintiff's case and establish that there was
an entirely reasonable basis for the principal's policy requiring him
to get prior approval for his supplemental handouts? Seems a fair
question to pose to the people on this listserv.

Ed Brayton



___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Scarberry, Mark










Perhaps we should wait for confirmation that
the "Easter handout" is authentic before judging Mr. Williams based
on it. The source for it is a webpage that is very hostile to Mr. Williams and
to the Alliance Defense Fund. 

 



Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine University School of Law

 



-Original
Message-
From: Ed Brayton
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
11:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 

I think the folks in the
school district that you refer to would have had a pretty strong case that many
of those assignments were impermissable. Was there ever a lawsuit filed in that
case, by the way? At any rate, it has nothing to do with this situation. Let me
ask you directly, Jim: do you think the Easter handout that I posted was
appropriate for a public school classroom? Do you think that it could or should
pass constitutional muster?

Ed Brayton






___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

I think the folks in the school district that you refer to would have
had a pretty strong case that many of those assignments were
impermissable. Was there ever a lawsuit filed in that case, by the way?
At any rate, it has nothing to do with this situation. Let me ask you
directly, Jim: do you think the Easter handout that I posted was
appropriate for a public school classroom? Do you think that it could
or should pass constitutional muster?

Ed Brayton

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hard to say, but many on this list will recall last year's
controversy over purported indoctrination in Islam in a California
middle school, where parents seeking an opt-out option were refused
relief from having their children spend some six weeks in immersion
study of Islam.Â The text used in teaching about Islam in that program,
had the following assignment in it:
Â
Following are excerpts and
some suggested review exercises from Across the Centuries, a Houghton
Mifflin social studies textbook for seventh-graders:
Â
"An Islamic term that
is often misunderstood is jihad. The term means âto struggle, to do
one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil. Under certain
conditions, the struggle to overcome evil may require action."
Â
"These revelations
confirmed both Muhammad's belief in one God, or monotheism, and his
role as the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God. The
God he believed in â Allah â is the same God of other monotheistic
religions, Judaism and Christianity. Allah, the Arabic word for God, is
the word used in the Qur'an."
Â
Review:
Â
"Writing activity.
Assume you are a Muslim soldier on your way to conquer Syria in the
year A.D. 635. Write three journal entries that reveal your thoughts
about Islam, fighting in the battle, or life in the desert."
Â
"Collaborative
learning. Form small groups of students to build a miniature mosque.
You may decide to use cardboard, papier-mache, or other materials. Have
one member do research at the library to find out what the insides of
mosques look like. Have another member design a building plan. And have
two members collect the building materials. Together, construct the
mosque according to your plan."

Of course, that Houghton
Mifflin and a different California school district have decided to
inculcate Islam does not justify Mr. Williams' in inculcating
Christianity, if that is what he has done.Â
Â
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ

___
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

Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 02:27  PM, Ed Brayton wrote:
Steven Jamar wrote:
Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and 
presentation.
Mr. Williams teaches 5th grade.
I should have been more clear -- I was responding to Henderson's 
inquiry about could such an assignment ever be ok.

Ed Brayton
--
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/
"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life:  It 
goes on."

Robert Frost
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information


Steven Jamar wrote:
Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and 
presentation. 
Mr. Williams teaches 5th grade.
Ed Brayton
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information



Doubt my candor and sincerity about the matter if you choose to do so, but I would have no problem with the assignment posed by Sandy.
 
Of course, the teacher would be at great pains not to downgrade student responses that adopted viewpoints the teacher found to be odious, either that the Gospels do not inculcate anti-Semetism or that they justifiably do so or any other opinion that can be rendered in a fashion that reasonably and satisfactorily completes the assignment.  And that would be the tough part of this assignment:  grading it.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Volokh, Eugene

Sandy's hypothetical is an excellent one, but let me add a refinement:  I'm not 
sure that this assignment would violate the Establishment Clause, or even that 
Williams' assignment did so.  Yet would anyone on the list think that it's 
unconstitutional for the school to conclude that this assignment causes more 
trouble and upset than it's worth, and that the teacher therefore ought to be 
barred from assigning it?  That, I take it, is the purely legal question in the 
Williams case.

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sanford Levinson 
Sent: Fri 12/10/2004 2:16 PM 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
        Cc: 
    Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information



Imagine the following assignment by a Jewish teacher to his class in
World History two weeks before Easter (when, it so happens, the syllabus
for the course is treating the Holocaust): 

The account of Jesus's trial and subsequent punishment as set out in the
Christian Gospels is viewed by many historians and theologians as a
central source of anti-Semitism and the cause of persecution and,
indeed, massacre, of Jews throughout the ages.  Please read the various
accounts of Jesus's trial in the four Gospels and indicate why someone
might view them as anti-Semitic.  (Is there significant variation among
the Gospels in this regard?)

Would anyone on this list who supports Mr. Williams have any problems
with this assignment?



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:24 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

IF this is typical of what the teacher was complaining about being
forbidden  to teach, the only question for the court is whether
plaintiff will be liable for the school's attorneys fee under Rule 11,
Marc Stern

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

The key question in the Steven Williams case, as Jim Henderson and I
agreed last week, will revolve around the facts of the case - the
contents of the handouts that were disallowed by the principal and
whether they indicate that what Mr. Williams was engaged in was
proselytizing rather than teaching history. Some of those handouts were
included in the complaint that the ADF filed
(http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/media/WilliamsvCupertinoComplaint.pd
f),
and one more has been published at
http://www.eriposte.com/philosophy/fundamentalism/StevenWilliams_Easter_
assignment.jpg.
The latter is apparently an assignment that Williams handed out about
Easter to his 5th grade class. Here is the text of that assignment:



Activities on Exploring Easter and Why it's Relevant in our Culture and
Nation

Christianity has had a huge influence on our nation and so during the
Easter season it's important to know why Christians celebrate this
'Holy'-day and what impact Jessu Christ had on our society and nation.
Pick 2 of the following activities and present them next week.

* Read the East er story in the bible. Start reading Luke, chapter 22
and continue to the end of the book of Luke. Write a resopnse to some of

the themes in the Easter story of the bible: betrayal, sacrifice,
resurrection, love, hope, new life. Write a response to any of the
themes in the story using references from the bible and how they apply
to our culture today. Make a diorama of a scene from the story and
attach your written response.

*Interview a Christian family that celebrates Easter and write about
what they do and why they do it. Write a summary of your interview and
give an oral presentation to the class on what you found using props and

antyhing appropriate to enhancing your presentation.

*John Adams wrote, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other." He also wrote a paper called, "American Independence was
Achieved Upon the Principles of Chr

Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:55:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But would you care to lay odds on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim family to find out how they celebrated Ramadan? I'd say they're probably slim to none. All of that will of course come out in court or in depositions.
Hard to say, but many on this list will recall last year's controversy over purported indoctrination in Islam in a California middle school, where parents seeking an opt-out option were refused relief from having their children spend some six weeks in immersion study of Islam. The text used in teaching about Islam in that program, had the following assignment in it:
Following are excerpts and some suggested review exercises from Across the Centuries, a Houghton Mifflin social studies textbook for seventh-graders:
"An Islamic term that is often misunderstood is jihad. The term means âto struggle, to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil. Under certain conditions, the struggle to overcome evil may require action."
"These revelations confirmed both Muhammad's belief in one God, or monotheism, and his role as the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God. The God he believed in â Allah â is the same God of other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity. Allah, the Arabic word for God, is the word used in the Qur'an."
Review:
"Writing activity. Assume you are a Muslim soldier on your way to conquer Syria in the year A.D. 635. Write three journal entries that reveal your thoughts about Islam, fighting in the battle, or life in the desert."
"Collaborative learning. Form small groups of students to build a miniature mosque. You may decide to use cardboard, papier-mache, or other materials. Have one member do research at the library to find out what the insides of mosques look like. Have another member design a building plan. And have two members collect the building materials. Together, construct the mosque according to your plan."
Of course, that Houghton Mifflin and a different California school district have decided to inculcate Islam does not justify Mr. Williams' in inculcating Christianity, if that is what he has done.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and presentation.

I also think that we as lawyers, having been trained in a certain kind of compartmentalization and detachment and objectivity (please don't ignore the "certain kind" and blast me for an assertion I am not making), underestimate the difficulty of making the distinctions that we take for granted. And the whole experience of a believer is different from that of an outsider and some believers believe that it would be untrue to their beliefs even to investigate other things or to present information they don't agree with as anything but falsehood. And some of these people are teachers.

My boys experienced a variety of incidents in schools where fundamentalists or evangeilcals and in one instance even young earther Christian teachers made explicit statements about religion and religous truth and/or taught, and in one case tested, certain things that excluded as religions anything other than Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. These were mostly social science and English teachers.

As much as they or anyone else guards against injecting beliefs into the classroom, it happens -- the time together is just so extensive and intensive. So we need to cut a bit of slack for those sorts of things.

But there comes a time when the teachers go over the line in assignments or comments or whatever. And this seems to be one of them. But I would really need to know all about it to make that decision.

There are those on this list who have in the past opined that it is not possible to teach about religion without demeaning believers in the process -- it is, to them, inherent it teaching about instead of teaching the truth of it. That level of paranoia or thin-skinnedness or world view or whatever motivates those sorts of comments cannot be responded to effectively. There is no way around that world view. But that does not make that world view the right one or grant it a unit veto over the rest of us who want to understand each other.

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/

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed wrote:
Yes, that one assignment, aside from the others and in an entirely 
different context, might be appropriate. But would you care to lay 
odds on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim 
family to find out how they celebrated Ramadan?

So my questions is: If the assignment is a violation of the students' 
rights, why does a repetition make both ok?

I think this is an oddly phrased question. The issue does not concern a 
violation of the students' rights but rather whether it is a violation 
of the establishment clause on the part of the teacher. In relation to 
that question, context matters a great deal. A teacher who assigned 
people to interview someone from each of the prominent faiths to talk 
about how they celebrated the holy days in their religion - a Muslim 
family during Ramadan, a Christian family at Christmas time, a Jewish 
family during Passover, and so forth, would have a much stronger case to 
make that he was merely trying to introduce his students to the diverse 
traditions of different groups that make up our society, an assignment 
that would have some clear non-proselytizing purpose. But a teacher who 
assigned something like this only for a Christian holiday and for no 
other could not plausibly make that argument, particularly if the only 
such assignment they gave was to learn about the tradition that 80% of 
more of them had grown up and are already familiar with. In an 
establishment clause case, such a distinction would be very important, 
would it not?

Ed Brayton
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Sanford Levinson

Imagine the following assignment by a Jewish teacher to his class in
World History two weeks before Easter (when, it so happens, the syllabus
for the course is treating the Holocaust):  

The account of Jesus's trial and subsequent punishment as set out in the
Christian Gospels is viewed by many historians and theologians as a
central source of anti-Semitism and the cause of persecution and,
indeed, massacre, of Jews throughout the ages.  Please read the various
accounts of Jesus's trial in the four Gospels and indicate why someone
might view them as anti-Semitic.  (Is there significant variation among
the Gospels in this regard?) 

Would anyone on this list who supports Mr. Williams have any problems
with this assignment?

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:24 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

IF this is typical of what the teacher was complaining about being
forbidden  to teach, the only question for the court is whether
plaintiff will be liable for the school's attorneys fee under Rule 11,
Marc Stern

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

The key question in the Steven Williams case, as Jim Henderson and I
agreed last week, will revolve around the facts of the case - the
contents of the handouts that were disallowed by the principal and
whether they indicate that what Mr. Williams was engaged in was
proselytizing rather than teaching history. Some of those handouts were
included in the complaint that the ADF filed
(http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/media/WilliamsvCupertinoComplaint.pd
f),
and one more has been published at
http://www.eriposte.com/philosophy/fundamentalism/StevenWilliams_Easter_
assignment.jpg. 
The latter is apparently an assignment that Williams handed out about
Easter to his 5th grade class. Here is the text of that assignment:



Activities on Exploring Easter and Why it's Relevant in our Culture and
Nation

Christianity has had a huge influence on our nation and so during the
Easter season it's important to know why Christians celebrate this
'Holy'-day and what impact Jessu Christ had on our society and nation. 
Pick 2 of the following activities and present them next week.

* Read the East er story in the bible. Start reading Luke, chapter 22
and continue to the end of the book of Luke. Write a resopnse to some of

the themes in the Easter story of the bible: betrayal, sacrifice,
resurrection, love, hope, new life. Write a response to any of the
themes in the story using references from the bible and how they apply
to our culture today. Make a diorama of a scene from the story and
attach your written response.

*Interview a Christian family that celebrates Easter and write about
what they do and why they do it. Write a summary of your interview and
give an oral presentation to the class on what you found using props and

antyhing appropriate to enhancing your presentation.

*John Adams wrote, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other." He also wrote a paper called, "American Independence was
Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity." Write a one page report
on why he felt so strongly that this nation should be founded on
Christian principles and quote from primary sources.

*Review some of the famous teachings of Jesus Christ such as: the Golden

Rule, the Sermon on the Mount, and parable of the Good Samaritan. Write
a response to this teaching and how it is applied today in our culture
and examples of how it has shaped our nation. Present a short oral
presentation or skit to the class which demonstrates what you learned.

*You will pretend to be a newspaper reporter and you will need to
interview someone who works for a church near you. Ask them, what will
their church be doing to remember Jesus' death and resurrection? Why is
Easter important to them? Write a one page article based on your
interview.

Pick 2 of the activities to complete by next Wed. 4/14

-

Assuming this document is authentic, it would certainly seem to me that
it strongly undercuts Williams' case. The assignment is clearly
inappropriate proselytizing and it would strongly support the school
district's argument that Mr. Williams could not be trusted to determine
what is appropriate or inappropriate when it came to supplemental
materials and that the administration's oversight on that matter was
entirely justified.It should also be noted that there are at least 2
quotes in his other handouts that are entir

Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread cloonaka

Ed wrote:
Yes, that one assignment, aside from the others and in an entirely different context, might be appropriate. But would you care to lay odds on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim family to find out how they celebrated Ramadan? 
So my questions is: If the assignment is a violation of the students' rights, why does a repetition make both okay?

Kevin Cloonan
 Original message 

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:55:04 -0500
From: Ed Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Robert K. Vischer wrote:
>
> Let's focus on the assignment to interview a Christian
> family about Easter and present the findings, as that
> seems, at least in my view, to be the least
> egregious. If Williams had given similar interview
> assignments covering other faith traditions at other
> holidays, wouldn't that be palatable? If he was
> even-handed in the religious coverage of his
> assignments, it seems that the assignments could be
> defended as attempts to let students gain insight into
> the lived realities of their community's faith
> traditions. The problem with learning about religion
> simply as an external object to be studied in a
> textbook is that it necessarily tends to foster an
> impression of religion as a relic. Nothing
> eviscerates the vibrancy of faith like boiling it down
> to a two-page textbook synopsis. Certainly Williams
> should not be allowed to present the resurrection as
> historical fact, but is there any problem giving the
> students access to individuals who do view the
> resurrection (or Passover, etc.) as historical fact?
>
> Yes, that one assignment, aside from the others and in
> an entirely different context, might be appropriate. But
> would you care to lay odds on whether Mr. Williams had
> his students interview a Muslim family to find out how
> they celebrated Ramadan? I'd say they're probably slim
> to none. All of that will of course come out in court or
> in depositions.
>
> Ed Brayton
>
>___
>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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information





Robert K. Vischer wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Let’s focus
on the assignment to
interview a Christian family about Easter and present the findings, as
that
seems, at least in my view, to be the least egregious.  If Williams had
given similar interview assignments covering other faith traditions at
other
holidays, wouldn’t that be palatable?  If he was even-handed in the
religious coverage of his assignments, it seems that the assignments
could be
defended as attempts to let students gain insight into the lived
realities of their
community’s faith traditions.  The problem with learning about
religion simply as an external object to be studied in a textbook is
that it
necessarily tends to foster an impression of religion as a relic.
 Nothing
eviscerates the vibrancy of faith like boiling it down to a two-page
textbook
synopsis.  Certainly Williams should not be allowed to present the
resurrection as historical fact, but is there any problem giving the
students access
to individuals who do view the resurrection (or Passover, etc.) as
historical
fact?
  


Yes, that one assignment, aside from the others and in an entirely
different context, might be appropriate. But would you care to lay odds
on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim family to
find out how they celebrated Ramadan? I'd say they're probably slim to
none. All of that will of course come out in court or in depositions. 

Ed Brayton




___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Robert K. Vischer









Let’s focus on the assignment to
interview a Christian family about Easter and present the findings, as that
seems, at least in my view, to be the least egregious.  If Williams had
given similar interview assignments covering other faith traditions at other
holidays, wouldn’t that be palatable?  If he was even-handed in the
religious coverage of his assignments, it seems that the assignments could be
defended as attempts to let students gain insight into the lived realities of their
community’s faith traditions.  The problem with learning about
religion simply as an external object to be studied in a textbook is that it
necessarily tends to foster an impression of religion as a relic.  Nothing
eviscerates the vibrancy of faith like boiling it down to a two-page textbook
synopsis.  Certainly Williams should not be allowed to present the
resurrection as historical fact, but is there any problem giving the students access
to individuals who do view the resurrection (or Passover, etc.) as historical
fact?

 

Rob Vischer

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
1:12 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information

 

. Those who have followed
my work over the years know I have been publicly critical of those who would
prohibit teaching about religion. I have just completed-at the request of the
Bible Literacy project, an affiliate of the American Bible Society- , vetting a
text to teach about the Bible and the  religious beliefs it
 engenders. MY colleagues on that project will, I am certain, testify that
I did not shrink from insisting that the authors explicate religious disputes
about the Bible in that book.

Plainly ,there are
circumstance  in which religion can be taught to students, although even
there a teacher probably has to follow school guidelines. This teacher is not
teaching about religion; he is not teaching about Christian beliefs about the Resurrection
and other matters. He teaches the resurrection as historical fact, even though
it is   a religious belief which I and millions of other Americans
deny. His selection of texts is designed to convey a religious message, not
teach history.

Liberals are sometimes
suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are
wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise. But if
Williams’ cases is an example of what teaching about religion is about,
then it cannot be taught in the public schools. My remark was then not a
humorous riposte as Jim would have it. For all the hoopla, this is a frivolous
case,  Its prosecution will set back efforts to teach religion in the
schools in serious and constitutional way. And it is a scary portend of what
The Alliance Defense Fund thinks the law is that it pursues this case.
Some cases are simply silly, even if they might in some way touch on serious
issues. This is one of them.

Marc Stern









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information



 



Marc's humorous riposte provides, I
suppose, all the analysis that he thinks the Williams' assignment
justifies.  Having doubts, after laboring in the woodshed from time to
time, that such humorous but otherwise pointless posts add anything of
substance to the discussion, I will ask those who care to respond to it this
question:





 





Is there any circumstance in the
American public schooling context in which any of these assignments may
properly be given to students?  If there are, what are they?  If
there are not, why not?  





 





Jim Henderson





Senior Counsel





ACLJ








___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

It is not an easy line to draw, but schools can teach about religion, about religious beliefs, about the roles of religion in history, and so on.  But schools cannot teach the religion as truth.  The school can teach that Muslims belief there is but one god and Mohammed is his prophet, but cannot teach that there is only one god and Mohammed is his prophet.  Schools can teach that most Christians believe in three-gods-in-one or one-god-in-three and that they believe that Jesus is the savior, but cannot teach that Jesus is the savior.
And it matters a lot whether it is a science class or a world ideologies class.

On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 12:32  PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will ask those who care to respond to it this question:
 
Is there any circumstance in the American public schooling context in which any of these assignments may properly be given to students?  If there are, what are they?  If there are not, why not? 
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ

-- 
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/

"Love the pitcher less and the water more."

Sufi Saying
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Marc Stern









. Those who have followed my work over the
years know I have been publicly critical of those who would prohibit teaching
about religion. I have just completed-at the request of the Bible Literacy project,
an affiliate of the American Bible Society- , vetting a text to teach about the
Bible and the  religious beliefs it  engenders. MY colleagues on that
project will, I am certain, testify that I did not shrink from insisting that the
authors explicate religious disputes about the Bible in that book.

Plainly ,there are circumstance  in
which religion can be taught to students, although even there a teacher probably
has to follow school guidelines. This teacher is not teaching about religion; he
is not teaching about Christian beliefs about the Resurrection and other matters.
He teaches the resurrection as historical fact, even though it is   a
religious belief which I and millions of other Americans deny. His selection of
texts is designed to convey a religious message, not teach history.

Liberals are sometimes suspicious of efforts
to teach about religion in the public schools. They are wrong to think that such
teaching is unconstitutional or unwise. But if Williams’ cases is an example
of what teaching about religion is about, then it cannot be taught in the
public schools. My remark was then not a humorous riposte as Jim would have it.
For all the hoopla, this is a frivolous case,  Its prosecution will set
back efforts to teach religion in the schools in serious and constitutional
way. And it is a scary portend of what The Alliance Defense Fund thinks the law
is that it pursues this case.
Some cases are simply silly, even if they might in some way touch on serious issues.
This is one of them.

Marc Stern









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004
12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information



 



Marc's humorous riposte provides, I suppose, all the
analysis that he thinks the Williams' assignment justifies.  Having
doubts, after laboring in the woodshed from time to time, that such humorous
but otherwise pointless posts add anything of substance to the discussion, I
will ask those who care to respond to it this question:





 





Is there any circumstance in the American public schooling
context in which any of these assignments may properly be given to
students?  If there are, what are they?  If there are not, why
not?  





 





Jim Henderson





Senior Counsel





ACLJ








___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information



Marc's humorous riposte provides, I suppose, all the analysis that he thinks the Williams' assignment justifies.  Having doubts, after laboring in the woodshed from time to time, that such humorous but otherwise pointless posts add anything of substance to the discussion, I will ask those who care to respond to it this question:
 
Is there any circumstance in the American public schooling context in which any of these assignments may properly be given to students?  If there are, what are they?  If there are not, why not?  
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

2004-12-10 Thread Marc Stern

IF this is typical of what the teacher was complaining about being
forbidden  to teach, the only question for the court is whether
plaintiff will be liable for the school's attorneys fee under Rule 11,
Marc Stern

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

The key question in the Steven Williams case, as Jim Henderson and I 
agreed last week, will revolve around the facts of the case - the 
contents of the handouts that were disallowed by the principal and 
whether they indicate that what Mr. Williams was engaged in was 
proselytizing rather than teaching history. Some of those handouts were 
included in the complaint that the ADF filed 
(http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/media/WilliamsvCupertinoComplaint.pd
f), 
and one more has been published at 
http://www.eriposte.com/philosophy/fundamentalism/StevenWilliams_Easter_
assignment.jpg. 
The latter is apparently an assignment that Williams handed out about 
Easter to his 5th grade class. Here is the text of that assignment:

Activities on Exploring Easter and Why it's Relevant in our Culture and 
Nation

Christianity has had a huge influence on our nation and so during the 
Easter season it's important to know why Christians celebrate this 
'Holy'-day and what impact Jessu Christ had on our society and nation. 
Pick 2 of the following activities and present them next week.

* Read the East er story in the bible. Start reading Luke, chapter 22 
and continue to the end of the book of Luke. Write a resopnse to some of

the themes in the Easter story of the bible: betrayal, sacrifice, 
resurrection, love, hope, new life. Write a response to any of the 
themes in the story using references from the bible and how they apply 
to our culture today. Make a diorama of a scene from the story and 
attach your written response.

*Interview a Christian family that celebrates Easter and write about 
what they do and why they do it. Write a summary of your interview and 
give an oral presentation to the class on what you found using props and

antyhing appropriate to enhancing your presentation.

*John Adams wrote, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and 
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any 
other." He also wrote a paper called, "American Independence was 
Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity." Write a one page report 
on why he felt so strongly that this nation should be founded on 
Christian principles and quote from primary sources.

*Review some of the famous teachings of Jesus Christ such as: the Golden

Rule, the Sermon on the Mount, and parable of the Good Samaritan. Write 
a response to this teaching and how it is applied today in our culture 
and examples of how it has shaped our nation. Present a short oral 
presentation or skit to the class which demonstrates what you learned.

*You will pretend to be a newspaper reporter and you will need to 
interview someone who works for a church near you. Ask them, what will 
their church be doing to remember Jesus' death and resurrection? Why is 
Easter important to them? Write a one page article based on your
interview.

Pick 2 of the activities to complete by next Wed. 4/14

-

Assuming this document is authentic, it would certainly seem to me that 
it strongly undercuts Williams' case. The assignment is clearly 
inappropriate proselytizing and it would strongly support the school 
district's argument that Mr. Williams could not be trusted to determine 
what is appropriate or inappropriate when it came to supplemental 
materials and that the administration's oversight on that matter was 
entirely justified.It should also be noted that there are at least 2 
quotes in his other handouts that are entirely fictitious, and quite 
possibly one entire document referenced that is a forgery (Washington's 
"prayer journal").

Ed Brayton

___
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

RE: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-07 Thread Marc Stern









Who has the burden of proving which was
which?
Marc Stern

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:47
PM
To: Law
 & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case



 

I tend to agree with Marty's take here  -- I think this is
basically a due process issue -- but I'm not sure all courts agree. I think
this was the real issue in Cockrel (The teacher got sandbagged. When the
community got upset, the school punished her for doing something it had given
her permission to do.) But while I think Cockrel is really a due process case,
the Sixth Circuit treated it as a free speech case involving employee speech
rights (e.g. Pickering, Connick etc.). And I'm not sure that the Sixth Circuit
is alone in mixing these ideas up. 

But, to bring this back to the Williams case, all of this presupposes that the
teacher's comments were consistent with curriculum requirements, or what
everyone understood the curriculum requirements to be. 
Mark says that in the Williams case, the complaint contends that Williams was
complying with curriculum requirements. If we are talking about a teacher
distributing historical materials that include references to religion for the
purpose of discussing them from an historical perspective, I would think the
teacher has a pretty good argument. If we are talking about a teacher
distributing historical materials that include references to religion as a
pretext for  starting discussions intended to promote the teacher's own
religious beliefs, I think the school quire properly restricted such
activities. I have no basis for knowing what actually transpired in this case
-- but as an abstract legal matter, those two alternatives identify the poles
of the continuum.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis


At 04:48 PM 12/6/2004 -0500, you wrote:



Interesting you should raise that distinction, Alan.  I
think that there really is a due process issue
in discharging a teacher for classroom speech or conduct that the teacher had
every reason to think was acceptable at the time and that only became
"unacceptable," and worthy of sanction, after the community
objected.  This was the problem in the Fourth Circuit Boring v. Buyncombe County case, too, and
in Boring's cert. petition, counsel focused on the denial of due process (to no
avail). 
 
But
from the perspective of the free speech
clause, what difference does it make if the teacher is fired because
her speech demonstrated (in the school's view, after the fact) a lack of
judgment, or whether she's fired because her speech violated a
specific ex ante curricular prohibition?  Why should the former be
entitled to greater constitutional protection, apart from the fair-notice
issue?

- Original Message - 

From: A.E.
Brownstein 

To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics 

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case

I don't think Cockrel is really inconsistent with
Marty's earlier statement that "Under the "government
speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their official
capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed curriculum. 
This is the majority view in the courts of appeals -- that there is no Free
Speech Clause right of individual teachers to teach what they wish in the
classroom." In Cockrel, the teacher had permission to invite the speakers
who caused the controversy  into her classroom and the school district
conceded that the presentations had educational value. The school district did
not argue that the plaintiff had taught material that was outside of the
curriculum. If she had, I think Marty is correct that the school district could
have required her to hue the line and stick to the curriculum.

The only open question in this area, I think, is what
happens when teachers say things in brief statements during class that are not
expressly prohibited by district rules, but are arguably outside of the
curriculum,  Not every sentence spoken in a classroom relates to the
school's curriculum. There is some play in the joints -- particularly with
regard to the discussion of unanticipated current events. Once the principal tells
a teacher that particular comments are unacceptable (e.g. stick to the
curriculum), I think the teacher has no free speech rights to continue a
classroom discussion. What is less clear is whether the teacher can be
disciplined for the comments he or she expressed before the principal
instructed her to end the discussion.

Alan Brownstein

UC Davis












___
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.  
Any

RE: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-06 Thread Newsom Michael









Alan has framed the predicate factual
inquiry.  The problem, of course, is that the line between the two –
history and proselytizing – is exceedingly indistinct.  In the hands
of some teachers, there is simply no line at all.  In the hands of others,
there might be one.  The old, old pre-incorporation cases, in their own
way, do a good job of exploring the problem.  (Whether they SOLVE the problem
is another matter altogether.)

 

At the level of constitutional policy analysis,
as applied rather narrowly to the public school setting, the question really is
whether one should adopt a formalist or a functionalist approach to the problem
of the indistinct line.  If one were to take the former course, two rules
appear to emerge: (1) ban the historical and thus ban the proselytizing, (2)
don’t ban the historical and be agnostic about the proselytizing.  A
functionalist approach would suggest: look closely at the facts in the case to
determine if it is possible, given the facts, to have the historical and to ban
proselytizing.  Where the facts aren’t clear, or are inconclusive,
one has to have a default (i.e. formalist) rule -- either the first or the
second -- that now kicks in.

 

NONE of these approaches particularly
appeals to me.  There is a raft of external considerations (external to
the public school setting) that, I think, should be factored in.  But here
I go about context again.  I do think that there are large questions at
stake here.  Five gets you ten that the teacher was peddling majoritarian
religion in one form or another.   

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: A.E. Brownstein
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004
5:47 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case

 

If we are talking about a teacher distributing
historical materials that include references to religion for the purpose of
discussing them from an historical perspective, I would think the teacher has a
pretty good argument. If we are talking about a teacher distributing historical
materials that include references to religion as a pretext for  starting
discussions intended to promote the teacher's own religious beliefs, I think
the school quire properly restricted such activities. I have no basis for
knowing what actually transpired in this case -- but as an abstract legal
matter, those two alternatives identify the poles of the continuum.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis










___
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: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-06 Thread A.E. Brownstein



I tend to agree with Marty's take here  -- I think this is basically
a due process issue -- but I'm not sure all courts agree. I think this
was the real issue in Cockrel (The teacher got sandbagged. When the
community got upset, the school punished her for doing something it had
given her permission to do.) But while I think Cockrel is really a due
process case, the Sixth Circuit treated it as a free speech case
involving employee speech rights (e.g. Pickering, Connick etc.). And I'm
not sure that the Sixth Circuit is alone in mixing these ideas up.

But, to bring this back to the Williams case, all of this presupposes
that the teacher's comments were consistent with curriculum requirements,
or what everyone understood the curriculum requirements to be. 
Mark says that in the Williams case, the complaint contends that Williams
was complying with curriculum requirements. If we are talking about a
teacher distributing historical materials that include references to
religion for the purpose of discussing them from an historical
perspective, I would think the teacher has a pretty good argument. If we
are talking about a teacher distributing historical materials that
include references to religion as a pretext for  starting
discussions intended to promote the teacher's own religious beliefs, I
think the school quire properly restricted such activities. I have no
basis for knowing what actually transpired in this case -- but as an
abstract legal matter, those two alternatives identify the poles of the
continuum.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis

At 04:48 PM 12/6/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Interesting
you should raise that distinction, Alan.  I think that there really
is a due process issue in discharging a teacher for classroom
speech or conduct that the teacher had every reason to think was
acceptable at the time and that only became "unacceptable," and
worthy of sanction, after the community objected.  This was the
problem in the Fourth Circuit Boring v. Buyncombe County case,
too, and in Boring's cert. petition, counsel focused on the denial of due
process (to no avail). 
 
But from the perspective of the free speech
clause, what difference does it make if the teacher is fired because
her speech demonstrated (in the school's view, after the fact) a lack of
judgment, or whether she's fired because
her speech violated a specific ex ante curricular prohibition?  Why
should the former be entitled to greater constitutional protection, apart
from the fair-notice issue?


- Original Message - 

From: A.E.
Brownstein 

To: Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics 

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case

I don't think Cockrel is really inconsistent with Marty's earlier
statement that "Under the "government
speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their
official capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's
prescribed curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts of
appeals -- that there is no Free Speech Clause right of individual
teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom." In Cockrel, the
teacher had permission to invite the speakers who caused the
controversy  into her classroom and the school district conceded
that the presentations had educational value. The school district did not
argue that the plaintiff had taught material that was outside of the
curriculum. If she had, I think Marty is correct that the school district
could have required her to hue the line and stick to the
curriculum.

The only open question in this area, I think, is what happens when
teachers say things in brief statements during class that are not
expressly prohibited by district rules, but are arguably outside of the
curriculum,  Not every sentence spoken in a classroom relates to the
school's curriculum. There is some play in the joints -- particularly
with regard to the discussion of unanticipated current events. Once the
principal tells a teacher that particular comments are unacceptable (e.g.
stick to the curriculum), I think the teacher has no free speech rights
to continue a classroom discussion. What is less clear is whether the
teacher can be disciplined for the comments he or she expressed before
the principal instructed her to end the discussion.


Alan Brownstein

UC Davis






___
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: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-06 Thread Scarberry, Mark









As I read the complaint, Williams is
arguing that the references to God and to religion in some of his supplemental
handouts (in only 5% of them according to the complaint) are consistent with
both state and school district curriculum guidelines on teaching history. He
claims the principal is in fact keeping him from complying with the state and
district curricular requirements. The complaint notes the extreme paucity of
references to religion in the textbook. The complaint also notes the
requirements of several curricular guidelines that the history of religious matters,
and the effect of religion on historical events, be covered in the history
course. Thus Williams claims he was hewing the line and sticking to the
required curriculum before the principal took action against him.

 



Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine University School of Law

 



-Original Message-
From: A.E. Brownstein
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004
1:39 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case

 

I don't think Cockrel is really inconsistent with
Marty's earlier statement that "Under the "government
speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their official capacities (i.e., while
teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed curriculum.  This is the
majority view in the courts of appeals -- that there is no Free Speech Clause
right of individual teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom." In
Cockrel, the teacher had permission to invite the speakers who caused the
controversy  into her classroom and the school district conceded that the
presentations had educational value. The school district did not argue that the
plaintiff had taught material that was outside of the curriculum. If she had, I
think Marty is correct that the school district could have required her to hue
the line and stick to the curriculum.

The only open question in this area, I think, is what happens when teachers say
things in brief statements during class that are not expressly prohibited by
district rules, but are arguably outside of the curriculum,  Not every
sentence spoken in a classroom relates to the school's curriculum. There is
some play in the joints -- particularly with regard to the discussion of
unanticipated current events. Once the principal tells a teacher that
particular comments are unacceptable (e.g. stick to the curriculum), I think
the teacher has no free speech rights to continue a classroom discussion. What
is less clear is whether the teacher can be disciplined for the comments he or
she expressed before the principal instructed her to end the discussion.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis







At 03:51 PM 12/6/2004 -0500, you wrote:



"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> 
Cockrel v. Shelby County School Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1051-52 (CTA6
2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 813 (2002).

- Original Message - 

From: Marc
Stern 

To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics 

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:35 PM

Subject:
RE: Steven Williams Case

What recent 6th circuit case recognizes a
teachers right to speak? There is old first circuit law to this effect-going
back to the Viet Nam era, but I do not remember recent case law to this effect.
But then they say that recent memory always goes first> /

Marc Stern

 







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

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004
3:20 PM

To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics

Subject:
Re: Steven Williams Case

 

In
very brief:  Under the "government speech" doctrine, a state may
require its teachers, in their official capacities (i.e., while teaching), to
hue to the state's prescribed curriculum.  This is the majority view in
the courts of appeals -- that there is no Free Speech Clause right of indivdual
teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom -- although there is some
recent caselaw going the other way (principally in the Sixth Circuit, IIRC).

 

Of
course, the state is not entirely free to teach whatever it wishes -- the
Establishment Clause imposes some constraints.  And, from all that appears
(see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html),
the interesting question in this case is an Establishment question, not a free
speech question -- namely, not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams'
preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must.

 

 

-
Original Message - 

From:
Ed Brayton 

To:
Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics 

Sent:
Monday, December 06, 2004 3:08 PM

Subject:
Re: Steven Williams Case

 

Mr.
Henderson-

I
disagree with your characterization of the situation. The title of the press
release was &q

Re: Steven Williams Case




Interesting you should raise that distinction, 
Alan.  I think that there really is a due process issue in 
discharging a teacher for classroom speech or conduct that the teacher had every 
reason to think was acceptable at the time and that only became "unacceptable," 
and worthy of sanction, after the community objected.  This was the problem 
in the Fourth Circuit Boring v. Buyncombe County case, too, and in 
Boring's cert. petition, counsel focused on the denial of due process (to no 
avail). 
 
But from the perspective of the free 
speech clause, what difference does it make if the teacher is fired 
because her speech demonstrated (in the school's view, after the fact) a 
lack of judgment, or whether she's fired 
because her speech violated a specific ex ante curricular prohibition?  Why 
should the former be entitled to greater constitutional protection, apart from 
the fair-notice issue?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  A.E. 
  Brownstein 
  To: Law & Religion issues for Law 
  Academics 
  Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:39 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
  I don't think Cockrel is really inconsistent with Marty's 
  earlier statement that "Under the "government speech" 
  doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their official 
  capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed 
  curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts of appeals -- that 
  there is no Free Speech Clause right of individual teachers to teach what they 
  wish in the classroom." In Cockrel, the teacher had permission to invite the 
  speakers who caused the controversy  into her classroom and the school 
  district conceded that the presentations had educational value. The school 
  district did not argue that the plaintiff had taught material that was outside 
  of the curriculum. If she had, I think Marty is correct that the school 
  district could have required her to hue the line and stick to the 
  curriculum.The only open question in this area, I think, is what 
  happens when teachers say things in brief statements during class that are not 
  expressly prohibited by district rules, but are arguably outside of the 
  curriculum,  Not every sentence spoken in a classroom relates to the 
  school's curriculum. There is some play in the joints -- particularly with 
  regard to the discussion of unanticipated current events. Once the principal 
  tells a teacher that particular comments are unacceptable (e.g. stick to the 
  curriculum), I think the teacher has no free speech rights to continue a 
  classroom discussion. What is less clear is whether the teacher can be 
  disciplined for the comments he or she expressed before the principal 
  instructed her to end the discussion.Alan BrownsteinUC 
  DavisAt 03:51 PM 12/6/2004 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 
xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = 
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = 
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> Cockrel v. Shelby County School Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1051-52 (CTA6 
2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 813 (2002).

  - Original Message - 
  From: Marc Stern 
  To: Law & Religion 
  issues for Law Academics 
  Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:35 PM
  Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
  What recent 6th circuit 
  case recognizes a teachers right to speak? There is old first circuit law 
  to this effect-going back to the Viet Nam era, but I do not remember 
  recent case law to this effect. But then they say that recent memory 
  always goes first> /
  Marc Stern
  
  

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf 
  Of Marty Lederman
      Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:20 PM
  To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
  Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
   
  In very brief:  Under the "government 
  speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their official 
  capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed 
  curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts of appeals -- 
  that there is no Free Speech Clause right of indivdual teachers to teach 
  what they wish in the classroom -- although there is some recent caselaw 
  going the other way (principally in the Sixth Circuit, 
  IIRC).
   
  Of course, the state is not entirely free to 
  teach whatever it wishes -- the Establishment Clause imposes some 
  constraints.  And, from all that appears (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html), 
  the interesting question in this case is an Establishment question, not a 
  free speech question -- namely, not whether the school may restrict Mr.

Re: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-06 Thread A.E. Brownstein



I don't think Cockrel is really inconsistent with Marty's earlier
statement that "Under the "government
speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their
official capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's
prescribed curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts of
appeals -- that there is no Free Speech Clause right of individual
teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom." In Cockrel, the
teacher had permission to invite the speakers who caused the
controversy  into her classroom and the school district conceded
that the presentations had educational value. The school district did not
argue that the plaintiff had taught material that was outside of the
curriculum. If she had, I think Marty is correct that the school district
could have required her to hue the line and stick to the
curriculum.
The only open question in this area, I think, is what happens when
teachers say things in brief statements during class that are not
expressly prohibited by district rules, but are arguably outside of the
curriculum,  Not every sentence spoken in a classroom relates to the
school's curriculum. There is some play in the joints -- particularly
with regard to the discussion of unanticipated current events. Once the
principal tells a teacher that particular comments are unacceptable (e.g.
stick to the curriculum), I think the teacher has no free speech rights
to continue a classroom discussion. What is less clear is whether the
teacher can be disciplined for the comments he or she expressed before
the principal instructed her to end the discussion.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis



At 03:51 PM 12/6/2004 -0500, you wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> 
Cockrel v. Shelby County School Dist., 270 F.3d
1036, 1051-52 (CTA6 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 813 
(2002).


- Original Message - 

From: Marc Stern 


To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:35 PM

Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case

What recent 6th circuit case recognizes a teachers right to speak? There is old first circuit law to this effect-going back to the Viet Nam era, but I do not remember recent case law to this effect. But then they say that recent memory always goes first> /


Marc Stern


 



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

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:20 PM

To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics

Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case


 


In very brief:  Under the "government speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their official capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts of appeals -- that there is no Free Speech Clause right of indivdual teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom -- although there is some recent caselaw going the other way (principally in the Sixth Circuit, IIRC).


 


Of course, the state is not entirely free to teach whatever it wishes -- the Establishment Clause imposes some constraints.  And, from all that appears (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html), the interesting question in this case is an Establishment question, not a free speech question -- namely, not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must.


 


 


- Original Message - 


From: Ed Brayton 


To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 


Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:08 PM


Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case


 


Mr. Henderson-

I disagree with your characterization of the situation. The title of the press release was "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom". But that isn't the reality. The reality is that a series of fliers that included excerpts from the Declaration of Independence were not allowed by the principal. Now, whether that decision is reasonable or not depends on the exact content of those fliers, what was intended by them, and several other factors. But it is still an exaggeration or oversimplification, at best, to portray that as banning the Declaration of Independence from the classroom. Do you think if he had just hung a copy of the Declaration on the wall, it would have been taken down? Highly unlikely. In order for it to be "banned from the classroom", that would need to be the case. I think this is precisely the kind of "grotesque overgeneralization and hyperbole" that you admit is the case with the claim that prayer has been banned in school.

But really that is neither here nor there. I did not intend for that to be the focus of the discussion. I was hoping, and still hope, for some discussion of the

Re: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-06 Thread Lupu

On the power of public schools to monitor religious expression in 
class by public school teachers, see also Roberts v. Madigan, 921 
F. 2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990), which Michael Paulsen and I discuss in 
a Symposium in the Case Western Res. L. Rev.  (43 CWR L Rev. 
at 851-52 for Paulsen's view; id. at 895-99 for mine.)

Chip Lupu

On 6 Dec 2004 at 15:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> In a message dated 12/6/2004 12:21:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> 
> In very brief: Under the "government speech" doctrine, a state may
> require its teachers, in their official capacities (i.e., while
> teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed curriculum. This is
> the majority view in the courts of appeals -- that there is no
> Free Speech Clause right of indivdual teachers to teach what they
> wish in the classroom -- although there is some recent caselaw
> going the other way (principally in the Sixth Circuit, IIRC).
> 
> 
> The Ninth Circuit came to the same conclusion using a slightly
> different analysis. In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District,
> 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), the court found that preventing a teacher
> from discussing religion with his students did restrict his free
> speech rights, but that the state's compelling interest in avoiding an
> Establishment Clause violation justified the restriction. As the court
> wrote:
> 
> "The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability to talk with
> students about religion during the school day is a restriction on his
> right of free speech. Nevertheless, 'the Court has repeatedly
> emphasized the need for allowing the comprehensive authority of the
> States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental
> constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the
> schools.' Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist, 393 U.S.
> 503, 506-O7, 89 S.Ct. 733, 737, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). '[T]he interest
> of the State in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation 'may be [a]
> compelling' one justifying an abridgment of free speech otherwise
> protected by the First Amendment' Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches
> Union Free School Dist., - U.S., 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2148, 124 L.Ed.2d 352
> (1993) (quoting Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 271, 102 S.Ct. 269,
> 275, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981)). This principle applies in this case. The
> school district's interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause
> violation trumps Peloza's right to free speech."
> 
> Full text of case available at this address:
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
> 
> Allen Asch
> erstwhile ACLU cooperating attorney



Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law 
The George Washington University Law School 
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052

(202) 994-7053

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

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

Re: Steven Williams Case




Actually, the relevant issue in Peloza 
involved a teacher's ability to speak to his students about religion 
outside the classroom.  See 37 F.3d at 522 ("Peloza seeks a 
declaration that this definition of instructional time is too broad, and that he 
should be allowed to participate in student-initiated discussions of religious 
matters when he is not actually teaching class.)  In that 
context, the teacher certainly has a colorable free-speech right, but it's 
subject to Pickeringbalancing and 
to possible Establishmnet Clause constraints, as the CTA9 
explained.
 
By the way, my apologies for writing "hue" instead 
of "hew" a couple of posts back.  Inexcusable -- I fully expect to hear the 
hew and cry any time now . . .   ;-)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:55 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
  In a message dated 12/6/2004 12:21:11 PM 
  Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  In very brief:  Under the "government speech" doctrine, a 
state may require its teachers, in their official capacities (i.e., while 
teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed curriculum.  This is the 
majority view in the courts of appeals -- that there is no Free Speech 
Clause right of indivdual teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom 
-- although there is some recent caselaw going the other way (principally in 
the Sixth Circuit, IIRC).The Ninth Circuit came to the 
  same conclusion using a slightly different analysis. In Peloza v. 
  Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), the court 
  found that preventing a teacher from discussing religion with his students did 
  restrict his free speech rights, but that the state's compelling interest in 
  avoiding an Establishment Clause violation justified the restriction. As the 
  court wrote:"The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability 
  to talk with students about religion during the school day is a restriction on 
  his right of free speech. Nevertheless, 'the Court has repeatedly emphasized 
  the need for allowing the comprehensive authority of the States and of school 
  officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe 
  and control conduct in the schools.' Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community 
  School Dist, 393 U.S. 503, 506-O7, 89 S.Ct. 733, 737, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). 
  '[T]he interest of the State in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation 
  'may be [a] compelling' one justifying an abridgment of free speech otherwise 
  protected by the First Amendment' Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union 
  Free School Dist., - U.S., 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2148, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) 
  (quoting Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 271, 102 S.Ct. 269, 275, 70 L.Ed.2d 
  440 (1981)). This principle applies in this case. The school district's 
  interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation trumps Peloza's right 
  to free speech."Full text of case available at this 
  address:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.htmlAllen 
  Ascherstwhile ACLU cooperating attorney 
  
  

  ___To post, send 
  message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To 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 [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: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-06 Thread AAsch

In a message dated 12/6/2004 12:21:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The Ninth Circuit came to the same conclusion using a slightly different analysis. In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), the court found that preventing a teacher from discussing religion with his students did restrict his free speech rights, but that the state's compelling interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation justified the restriction. As the court wrote:

"The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability to talk with students about religion during the school day is a restriction on his right of free speech. Nevertheless, 'the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for allowing the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.' Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist, 393 U.S. 503, 506-O7, 89 S.Ct. 733, 737, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). '[T]he interest of the State in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation 'may be [a] compelling' one justifying an abridgment of free speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment' Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., - U.S., 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2148, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (quoting Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 271, 102 S.Ct. 269, 275, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981)). This principle applies in this case. The school district's interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation trumps Peloza's right to free speech."

Full text of case available at this address:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html

Allen Asch
erstwhile ACLU cooperating attorney
___
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: Steven Williams Case




Cockrel v. Shelby County School Dist., 270 
F.3d 1036, 1051-52 (CTA6 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 813 (2002).

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Marc 
  Stern 
  To: Law & Religion issues for Law 
  Academics 
  Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:35 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case
  
  
  What recent 
  6th circuit case recognizes a teachers right to speak? There is old 
  first circuit law to this effect-going back to the Viet Nam era, 
  but I do not remember recent case law to this effect. But then they say that 
  recent memory always goes first> /
  Marc 
  Stern
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty LedermanSent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:20 
  PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law 
  AcademicsSubject: Re: Steven Williams 
  Case
   
  
  In very brief:  Under the 
  "government speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their 
  official capacities (i.e., 
  while teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed curriculum.  This is 
  the majority view in the courts of appeals -- that there is no Free Speech 
  Clause right of indivdual teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom -- 
  although there is some recent caselaw going the other way (principally in the 
  Sixth Circuit, IIRC).
  
   
  
  Of course, the state is not 
  entirely free to teach whatever it wishes -- the Establishment Clause imposes 
  some constraints.  And, from all that appears (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html), the 
  interesting question in this case is an Establishment question, not a free 
  speech question -- namely, not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' 
  preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must.
  
   
  
   
  

- Original Message - 


From: Ed 
Brayton 

To: Law & Religion issues for Law 
Academics 

Sent: Monday, 
December 06, 2004 3:08 PM

    Subject: Re: 
Steven Williams Case

 
Mr. Henderson-I disagree with your 
characterization of the situation. The title of the press release was 
"Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom". But that isn't the 
reality. The reality is that a series of fliers that included excerpts from the Declaration 
of Independence were not allowed by the principal. Now, whether that 
decision is reasonable or not depends on the exact content of those fliers, 
what was intended by them, and several other factors. But it is still an 
exaggeration or oversimplification, at best, to portray that as banning the 
Declaration of Independence from the classroom. Do you think if he had just 
hung a copy of the Declaration on the wall, it would have been taken down? 
Highly unlikely. In order for it to be "banned from the classroom", that 
would need to be the case. I think this is precisely the kind of "grotesque 
overgeneralization and hyperbole" that you admit is the case with the claim 
that prayer has been banned in school.But really that is neither 
here nor there. I did not intend for that to be the focus of the discussion. 
I was hoping, and still hope, for some discussion of the legal issues 
surrounding the case. Do teachers have a right to free speech while acting 
as teachers? Not an absolute one, I'm sure we would all agree, so what are 
the limitations on it? If those limitations are determined by the curriculum 
standards they are required to teach to, who has the authority to determine 
when supplemental material is germane to the teaching requirements, the 
teacher or the administration? If the two disagree, does that mean there was 
a rights violation that should be handled in court or should some other body 
handle such disputes? These are all interesting questions and they only 
scratch the surface. Any thoughts on those?Ed Brayton[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


The facts in the Steven Williams case, concededly 
relevant to the analysis to be applied and the likely outcome of that 
analysis, do not support the charge that the Alliance Defense Fund has made 
any misrepresentation of the facts 
whatever.

 

It appears that a single (meaning only one, not a 
marriage reference) complained about a handout given to the 
students as an exemplar:  a two-sided piece with George 
Washington's proclamation of a day of prayer on one side and George 
Bush's similar proclamation from this past May on the 
other.    

 

The upshot of the handling of 
the parental complaint was an instruction from the 
principal:  "I must review every one of your lesson plans and 
supplemental handouts."  Thereafter, handouts containing references 
to God were rejected (these documents are identified in t

RE: Steven Williams Case

2004-12-06 Thread Marc Stern









What recent 6th circuit case
recognizes a teachers right to speak? There is old first circuit law to this effect-going
back to the Viet Nam
era, but I do not remember recent case law to this effect. But then they say that
recent memory always goes first> /

Marc Stern

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004
3:20 PM
To: Law
 & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case



 



In very brief:  Under the "government
speech" doctrine, a state may require its teachers, in their official
capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the state's prescribed
curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts of appeals -- that there
is no Free Speech Clause right of indivdual teachers to teach what they wish in
the classroom -- although there is some recent caselaw going the other way
(principally in the Sixth Circuit, IIRC).





 





Of course, the state is not entirely free to teach whatever
it wishes -- the Establishment Clause imposes some constraints.  And, from
all that appears (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html), the
interesting question in this case is an Establishment question, not a free
speech question -- namely, not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams'
preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must.





 





 







- Original Message - 





From: Ed
Brayton 





To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics 





Sent: Monday,
December 06, 2004 3:08 PM





Subject: Re: Steven
Williams Case





 



Mr. Henderson-

I disagree with your characterization of the situation. The title of the press
release was "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom". But
that isn't the reality. The reality is that a series of fliers that included excerpts from the Declaration of
Independence were not allowed by the principal. Now, whether that decision is
reasonable or not depends on the exact content of those fliers, what was
intended by them, and several other factors. But it is still an exaggeration or
oversimplification, at best, to portray that as banning the Declaration of
Independence from the classroom. Do you think if he had just hung a copy of the
Declaration on the wall, it would have been taken down? Highly unlikely. In
order for it to be "banned from the classroom", that would need to be
the case. I think this is precisely the kind of "grotesque
overgeneralization and hyperbole" that you admit is the case with the
claim that prayer has been banned in school.

But really that is neither here nor there. I did not intend for that to be the
focus of the discussion. I was hoping, and still hope, for some discussion of
the legal issues surrounding the case. Do teachers have a right to free speech
while acting as teachers? Not an absolute one, I'm sure we would all agree, so
what are the limitations on it? If those limitations are determined by the
curriculum standards they are required to teach to, who has the authority to
determine when supplemental material is germane to the teaching requirements, the
teacher or the administration? If the two disagree, does that mean there was a
rights violation that should be handled in court or should some other body
handle such disputes? These are all interesting questions and they only scratch
the surface. Any thoughts on those?

Ed Brayton

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



The facts in the Steven Williams case, concededly
relevant to the analysis to be applied and the likely outcome of that analysis,
do not support the charge that the Alliance Defense Fund has made any
misrepresentation of the facts whatever.





 





It appears that a single (meaning only one, not a
marriage reference) complained about a handout given to the students
as an exemplar:  a two-sided piece with George Washington's
proclamation of a day of prayer on one side and George Bush's similar
proclamation from this past May on the other.    



 





The upshot of the handling of the parental complaint
was an instruction from the principal:  "I must review
every one of your lesson plans and supplemental handouts." 
Thereafter, handouts containing references to God were rejected (these
documents are identified in the complaint linked in the original email of this
thread).  None of the handouts were addressed to religious matters except
where the handout was a needed tool for meeting the instructional content
standards related to religious aspects of American history.  Among the
prohibited fliers was the flier with exerpts from the Declaration of
Independence.





 





I also note from the press releases of ADF related to
this matter that their organization has not engaged in the sort of grotesque
overgeneralization and hyperbole of the "prayer being banned in
school" ilk.  Instead, the lawsuit papers and the releases are p

Re: Steven Williams Case