teful.
I meant to respond to Professor Hamilton's argument that the only argument in
support of DOMA could be sectarian. I don't think so.
________
From: Esenberg, Richard
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 8:38 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; h
The morality of homosexual relationships can only be maintained by someone who
is unaware of - or ignores - the arguments that are actually made. You can
certainly disagree with these arguments but they do not proceed from
theological premises.
Posner's characterization on Slate of Altio's reci
Isn't there a strong tradition of aniconism in Islam. You're not supposed to
depict Allah, Muhammed or the lesser prophets?
Richard M. Esenberg
President & General Counsel
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
225 E. Mason Street, Suite 300
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
414-727-WILL (9455)
414-727-
But we all have beliefs that we feel others should act in accordance with. Some
are widely accepted, others are not. You may believe that it is wrong to
divorce your spouse when there are small children in the home simply because
you are unhappy. I may believe that it is wrong to operate a busin
Marci's post is inconsistent with what we know of the case. Facts matter and
the facts in this case call into question whether this is a neutral and
generally applicable rule. The University is telling Jen Keeton that she can't
believe what she believes. She must reject the notion that her relig
Perhaps there are facts not reported in the article, but it's not clear to me
how she has refused "to implement the standards of her profession" unless the
standards of the profession require her not to believe what she does about
homosexuality or, if she does, never to express those beliefs.
I'm not sure why, absent some judgment about the impropriety of the ministerial
exemption, one would think that employees and potential employees are somehow
entitled to disclosure about the way in which constitutional doctrine might
frustrate what they (perhaps erroneously) to be their statuto
, 2010 10:01 AM
To: Esenberg, Richard; Law & Religion issues for LawAcademics; Rick Duncan
Subject: Re: A real-life on-campus example
Actually, it is not true that the government cannot or does not impose
all-comer human rights policies on religions expecting government benefits
outside Hast
Marci wrote:
Of course the marketplace works as I described it especially in the US. Groups
thrive and shrivel and respond to and interact with the culture and if they
cannot adapt to broadbased moral and social changes by changing their beliefs
and practices, they become marginalized.
That re
And since we are all going back and reading Elena Kagan's ruminations on the
role of motive in assessing speech restrictions, we might ask what Hastings
seeks to accomplish by prohibiting CLS from insisting upon its distinctive
creed as a condition of leadership or voting membership. What work d
The right of expressive association is not a demand for government protection
in the market place of ideas or a demand for government support. It is, rather,
a shield against government compulsion, i.e., the demand that an organization
not define itself by adherance to any particular creed or th
Quite apart from Justice Breyer's view of the matter, the all comers policy
does seem fantastical since it wasn't cited by Hastings until after the matter
was in suit and recognized student organizations had all sorts of limitations
on who could become voting members or officers. One even had a
sex and for whatever reason isn't married is excluded by the CLS rule.
Quoting "Esenberg, Richard" :
> CLS v. Martinez occurred to me too. Although there are the
> complications of public fora analysis, it seems to me that the case
> may begin a process of facing the i
CLS v. Martinez occurred to me too. Although there are the complications of
public fora analysis, it seems to me that the case may begin a process of
facing the inevitable conflict presented by efforts to define a perspective
that is still shared by a significant portion of the population - perh
It is an interesting question. I wonder if the difference in standards might
affect a Mozert type case. Imagine a group of, say, Evangelicals whose
participation in a government program requires them to listen to ostensibly
secular messages that offend their religious sensibilities or that they
I'm late to this discussion but Rick is on to something that we have known for
a long time. The modern state cannot act without conferring religious insult. A
common move to avoid the implications of that is to announce, in Steven Jamar's
rule, some supposed difference between the religious and
It does not appear that any constitutional issues were raised but the question
brought to mind a decision last year by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in
Johnson v. Burmaster.
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=31069
The case held that a virtual school did n
The case is going nowhere and you have to assume somewhat different facts to
get to the level of plausibility - something that I tried to do on Prawfs this
morning.
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/12/the-church-or-mosque-of-aig.html
Rick Esenberg
Visiting Assistant Professor of La
I agree with Robert Lipkin that there is a thing called religion as difficult
as it may be to define. Certainly, there are things that we can confidently say
is not it.
What I have a problem with is the notion that government can be neutral among
religions or between religion or irreligion. In
My own personal reaction to invocations is often as Professor Friedman
describes and my concern about the asymmetric treatment of government speech
that makes religious dissenters feel like outsiders is more acutely presented
in cases involving curricular speech, private speech that can be deem
stein
UC Davis School of Law
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg, Richard
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:54 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I
Agreed, I'm interested in the larger question.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:19 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I
I agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without
invoking the name of Jesus and with Professor Lund that this seems like the
correct result under existing law (even Justice Scalia might agee) and I
appreciate Professor Laycock's invocation of the great Alexander Bickel.
"My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with an objection
to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe
that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected
by Caesar."
It's a worthy distinction and one that might app
It seems to fit uneasily into the Lamb's Chapel trilogy and hard to reconcile
with either Lemon neutrality or notions of nonendorsement.
Maybe it's an tougher case if the Islamic literature is not permitted in the
room when Muslim students are not using it (or, perhaps, if other literature is
a
ave been throughout our history. One could start with the Ku
Klux Klan, clearly a right-wing outfit. Think about those who indulged
in mob violence against African-Americans and gays. The rhetoric of
those mob attacks is hardly the language of the political left.
-Original Message-
From:
"Violence is visited far more by those on the political right
on those on the political left than is the reverse case."
What do mean by "violence, formal and informal. In contemporary America, direct
political violence is, thankfully, relatively rare unless you define violence
in a way that depa
If the Baltimore Sun report is correct
(http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story?page=2&coll=bal_tab01_layout),
then the Phelps statements could not be fighting words because the plaintiff
never saw the demonstration at the funeral. He saw it on television after t
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg,
Richard
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:20 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite
possible to suppose tha
lliam Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Areeda 223
Cambridge, MA 02138
ph: 617-496-4451 (office); 202-374-9571 (mobile)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Esenberg, Richard
Sent: Fri 11/2/2007 9:20 AM
To: Law & Religion issues f
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Could you be a bit more specific about the factual context of the Code
Pink demonstrations? How is it analogous to Westboro's conduct?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
Well, it certainly seems outrageous to me but I suspect that other reasonable
people might regard the Code Pink demonstrations outside the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center as, if not equally outrageous, at least comparable in their
tendency to upset those who are presumably in a place in which th
Certainly the claim must have been based on the content of the speech, but it
may be a TPM argument that is claimed to make that content actionable. In that
regard, I would be interested in knowing how the jury was instructed. Phelps
and his merry band once picketed my church in downtown Milwauk
33 matches
Mail list logo
