Marty puts the matter in the right analytical framework.
Arrangements regarding important child rearing issues are made, where
the family is intact, by the parents (typically) and the parents are
free, within fairly broad limits to be as "unreasonable" as they wish to
be. They are constrained b
r. This seems
implausible as Scalia suggests.
Rick Esenberg
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Marquette University Law School
Sensenbrenner Hall 321C
1103 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
(o) 414-288-6908
(m)414-213-3957
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTE
I accept your helpful point. I did not mean to suggest that informal
violence is random. The Ku Klux Klan perpetrated informal, albeit
organized, violence.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 7:1
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:13 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory
> against antigayspeech?
>
> N
dard
traditionalist Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim doctrine? I
would think that this sort of implication would be pretty significant.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent:
a manipulation of discourse for ideological ends,
especially
when others who do not accept or understand such definitions are
categorically labeled as wrong.
Scott Idleman
Marquette University Law School
- Original Message -
From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROT
ance, the violence that is glamorized by some rap
music -- as "left," "right," or something else is an exercise left to
the reader.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent
ages from the Bible)
could be outlawed. He and some others might think that's good. But I
just think it's important to recognize that that's the logical
implication of his argument.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[E
Recognition of gay rights would lead, and should lead,
to suppression of traditionalist religious groups' right to promote
their religious beliefs. Or am I mistaken?
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
&
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 3:03 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discrim
rights would lead, and should lead,
to suppression of traditionalist religious groups' right to promote
their religious beliefs. Or am I mistaken?
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
&
s speech rights of traditionalist Christians. When the first
group wins, the second loses (again, if Michael's views are to be
accepted).
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent:
rt's pretensions to viewpoint neutrality out the window
if that sort of exception is accepted (though fortunately I can't count
a single vote for it on today's Court).
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
The Phelps case is easy because of the unique facts. I don't think that
the Code Pink protests come close to matching the Phelps' protests.
Several writers in this thread have made the point that there is
something special about funerals, and ceremony, and ritual, and grief,
and that the law ought
IL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:58 PM
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
No, we don't all agree on a rigid speech-conduct distinction.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:43 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Speech and conduct
Setting a
1. The Phelps group is doing more than just "arguing" a point of
view regarding sin and homosexuality.
2. There is a difference between "saying" "God bless American
soldiers" and "Bush killed this soldier." The second clearly is meant
to insult. The relevant question is whether, in the
David has it right: a compelling governmental interest in protecting a
discrete and insular minority -- one that is routinely victimized.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cruz
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:12 PM
To: Law & Religio
Some of what I am about to say I have said before. But here goes
anyway.
What would be the risk of viewpoint discrimination, in a practical,
real-world, sense? I am not aware of any other groups who attempt to
inflict severe emotional distress on the occasion of the funeral of a
soldier killed i
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 PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg,
Richard
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Law &
Thanks for the scorecard. It is helpful!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 2:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Michigan RFRA?
Reid v. Kenowa Hills Public
You remember correctly. He has been in office, I believe, for a very
long time. His constituents keep sending him back. Maybe we ought to
worry a bit more about what THEY think.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ut that's what it MEANS"
Really? I thought that was exactly how it was meant. As Will suggests,
if he were a progressive (not stipulating now what that means) he would
probably be described as sharing the good news.
Richard J. Dougherty
-Original Message-
From: "Newsom Mi
I note with some interest that in a recent piece on the visit of Pope
Benedict XVI to Mariazell in Austria, includes a statement to the effect
that progressive Catholics might not like the Holy Father's
"proselytizing for the traditions of the faith." I seriously doubt that
the word as used can be
eople
who do not want to report themselves as religious because to them,
conservative Christians have given all religion a bad name.
The Baylor study may have picked up a small reversal of trend, or it may
have asked a slightly different question.
Quoting Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
I have an article coming out soon that has the word "proselytizing" in
its title. Like Steve, I thought that I was being accurate.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:16 PM
To: Law &
I wonder if there is a "surge" of people reporting no religion. The
Baylor study -- an extraordinary piece of social science work -- that
came out a year ago shows that 89.2% of Americans have a religious
affiliation, and of the remaining 10.8%, the study characterizes them as
"persons without a r
Doug's analysis is dead-on. While it is unfair, only by weeding out
some FE claims can we have any coherent system of FE exemptions. I have
read any number of articles discussing the weeding out process, and the
inclination of courts not to respect claims derived from "different" or
"strange" rel
I am not sure that (non)belief is a matter of choice. In my own case,
my belief in God is clearly not a matter of choice. I would be willing
to discuss this off-list.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman
Sent: Friday, August 3
Isn't the whole point of the EC that the government cannot be permitted
to be a "willing speaker" when it comes to God-talk? And isn't this the
reason why a per se analysis is more consistent with that purpose than
any compelling interest test might be? The EC contains its own
compelling interest
Yes, I would like to have it as well.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 1:15 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: NCBCPS Case
What's the URL of your blog, please?
Susan
Ed Bra
I wish that it were clear that there is a sharp line dividing the two.
There is, after all, a powerful dynamic relation between law and
morality, as there is between law and psychology, law and theology, and
any number of other relevant and germane factors and considerations.
Falwell obviously sou
I too have read the piece, but have a decidedly different reaction to
it. I wouldn't call it hate speech, or his attack vicious. That is,
perhaps, a bit too intemperate. He raises a series of legitimate
questions and concerns. The fact that his particular solutions might -
or might not - be pro
I don't disagree with the major thrust of what you say, except that I
wonder whether judges will avoid "intruding" in other categories of
cases.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:50 P
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:54 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
>
> You may be right on the point. I may be confusing the
> anti-commu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:25 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
>
> That is all well and good, but I have the
of deference to the
hierarchical authorities, whether the heads were under the influence of
Communists or not. Am I missing something here?
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, J
That is all well and good, but I have the sense that the Court
nonetheless applied secular norms in some post-Wolf cases, indeed
perhaps going so far as to constitutionalize a Congregationalist polity
even in hierarchical churches (be they Episcopalian or Presbyterian in
their polity). If this isn
I will be the first to admit that I may have misread Jones v. Wolf, but
"neutral principles of law" is a rather capacious concept, and don't
forget Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and the
insistence there of the right of the Court to provide a remedy where
there was "fraud, collusio
I will defer to those who know this area of the law better than I do,
but, isn't it the case that secular courts will impose secular notions
of procedural due process on adjudications by religious bodies? If that
is so, then this case may be but so important, if it turns out that the
Episcopal Bis
Colleagues, please excuse me, but I need
to get in touch with Frances Patterson. If she is following this list, I hope
that she will contact me ASAP. I am working on an article, and an earlier post
from her on this list raised some matters that are particularly relevant to
that enterprise
I agree.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Landsberg
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 4:22 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: From the list custodian re: theological discussions
Hallelujah!
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/2/2006 1:
Aren’t theological claims a bit
beyond the scope of the discussion on this listserv? I have no problem with
theological claims, and would have no problem discussing this claim. But not
here.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mo
I think that Marty’s analysis is as
good as it gets on this point. I still have my qualms about the “equality”
or “neutrality” principle that is implicit in his analysis. I
wonder whether an “anti-disruption” principle or something like
that might lead to a marginally better approach, and
Not everybody is happy.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006
12:47 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Fox News Forgets Fact
in Christian Graduation Speech Story
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wr
How is toleration advanced if a group of
intolerant students is allowed to bully and harass gay and lesbian students?
This question is especially acute in light of the sorry history of harassment –
and worse – of gay and lesbian people. And it would be disingenuous
in the extreme to argue
“Cross-religious dialogue,”
without some understanding of its context or setting, can hardly be the measure
or substance of toleration. Actions also help shape and define
toleration. They are at least as important as words are. Of course,
in some settings, words take on “action-lik
With all due respect, the prayer was hardly "private."
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Lash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:14 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Teenagers &The Spirit of Liberty
I think that the denigration of Rick and his
Ed, are you saying that public high
schools SPONSOR baccalaureate services? I understand these services to be
entirely religious in nature. If that is so, then such sponsorship is a clear
EC violation, isn’t it?
By the way, the sad and pathetic episode
that Rick trumpets illustrates t
It seems that the question on the table is
the “rights” of military chaplains, especially evangelical
Protestant ones who seem to be at the forefront of the agitation here.
But their “rights” have to be understood
in context. The military chaplaincies were not established in order to
The contributions
to the 501(c)(4) are not tax deductible.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
as Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 5:41 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subje
I am not so sure that the line that Doug draws between political ads and
sermons is clear. What about a sermon that exhorts the congregation to
participate in a particular get-out-the-vote drive?
---Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 200
nd private universities
as we are under the Religion part about improper control of churches?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:15 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:50 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Excessive entanglement
>
>
> I think that when it comes to religious organizations, the
l Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:28 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Excessive entanglement
>
>
> Isn't Lemon v. Kurtzman a go
How is the position at issue anything
other than discrimination?
From: Marc Stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:47
AM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: San Francicso Board
of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
Marci
should
not be followed. While one can infer government disapproval from the
adoption of different rules, that inference is not a necessary one.
Michael is correct that the problem here is due, at least in part, to
³overlap² From: Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Law & Religion is
These questions are posed to no one in particular, so everybody is free to
respond -- or not.
Does it matter that Catholic Charities is what Noonan and Gaffney might call a
"double duty" organization or institution? That is, the spheres or both church
and state have grown so that they frequent
Isn't Lemon v. Kurtzman a good place to begin a meaningful inquiry into
the contours of "excessive entanglement?" Burger identifies several
considerations that informed the judgment of the Court on this point:
"the substantial religious character of the[] church-related schools';
the need to monit
Isn't Gonzales v. O Centro rather more helpful than either Sherbert or
Yoder?
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 1:09 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Sabbatarians and deadlines
(1) I apprec
The sentence has to be read in context. The issue is the reach or ambit
of claims of "religious associational autonomy and privacy." To the
extent that the law recognizes or grants or accommodates the claim, the
law is declaring the claim to be "religious." I suppose one could say
that we accomm
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006
6:41 PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities
Issue
Newsom Michael wrote:
I
am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people are trying to get out
from under an oppressive regime the likes of which conserva
I don't understand your point about free passes.
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Oman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:28 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
"I am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people
g to regulate the behavior of
religious organizations.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas
Law School
727 E. Dean
Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
hone harassment law.
My broader point is that general terms like "exclude," "harass,"
and "worse" are probably cast at too high a level of generality here.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf O
y, March 20, 2006 8:25 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 3:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
C
that faith imposes.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas
Law School
727 E. Dean
Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006
12:23 P
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006
12:23 PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
If by “religious liberty
interests”
ticular suits, there has been as pattern of opposition to religious claims
in the gay rights context.
.
Marc Stern
f
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:25
PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Su
for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 3:36 PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
Could you give some examples of gay rights
proponent
.
From: Douglas Laycock
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:25
PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 3:3
ests -- by expressing so little regard for the liberty and autonomy of gay
people.
Alan Brownstein
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 10:15 AM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
I
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:16 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Actually Glendon's point is debatable. In the United State
Actually Glendon’s point is
debatable. In the United States, the predominant pattern of violence is of violence
visited by traditionalists on progressives, not the other way around.
From: Rick Duncan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006
12:16 PM
To: Law
&
tion that religions, religious
organizations, and religious believers have special and unique features.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:32 PM
> To: Law & Religion iss
No, it really isn’t nonsense. Anti-gay
violence exists on a far larger scale than you are prepared to admit. Sorry.
From: Brad M Pardee
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:55
AM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
The fact that there are laws in place is, often times, scant comfort.
The religious liberty issue may, in the final analysis for some people,
merely mean the liberty to bash in gay heads, all in name of God.
-Original Message-
From: Brad Pardee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, Marc
With respect, I think that you
overreach. It is true that there is a battle for the moral high ground,
for the right to parade around saying that “my” morality is the
controlling of legally sanctioned morality and “yours” is not. (We
experienced precisely this phenomenon in that great di
But the Religious Right –Catholic, Protestant
and otherwise – insists that gay people CAN be reasonably asked to live
celibate lives, if they cannot live heterosexual lives.
I merely wish to point out that some deny
the equivalence that you posit. I am not saying that I agree or disagr
The right thing to do? I am not so sure.
You did say that some children will suffer. Is that a good thing? Oops. This
discussion probably belongs off-list.
From: Rick Duncan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:15
PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law
With respect, I am not sure that characterizing the relation as akin to
that of employer and employee tells us how to decide the question. I
cannot imagine that there is a strong governmental interest in the
gender of clergypersons. Any expression or statement of such an
interest clearly results
I am still unpersuaded. I don't see the relevance of your examples.
You see no difference between the relation between clergy and religious
organizations and other "employment" relations? We are talking about
religions here. The Religion Clauses have to mean at least that we
recognize -- for bet
dgment" (which presumably would mean that they're per se
> unconstitutional, without even a strict scrutiny escape
> hatch) -- the policies seem to involve the same sort of
> judgments about, say, protecting people's economic
> opportunities (clergy is a paying job, after all) or
>
ssage-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:58 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE:
>
StateRFRAandnonreligiousgroupsthathaveconscientiousobjectionstoantidisc
idize race or sex
discrimination.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 9:59 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE:
> StateRFRAand
hts.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:09 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: State
> RFRAandnonreligiousgroupsth
ROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:21 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: State RFRA
> andnonreligiousgroupsthathaveconscientiousobjections
> toantidiscrimination laws
>
>
My point is that the ministerial exception should be broadly construed
and applied. In the specific context of clergy, the state should not
quickly or easily claim that a religious organization is ineligible for
a subsidy if it is guilty of what the state claims is discrimination.
The question i
ons.)
All this is directly related to an article I'm writing, so I'd
love to hear more people's views on this subject!
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent:
I am troubled by your Boy Scouts hypo. First, how does this group have
standing to raise a religious freedom claim? What is the Boy Scout's
"religion?" Dale was about associational rights, not religion-based
rights. Second, when you introduce possible "erotic" attractions, you
load the dice. W
I will just note that Congress has the
discretion to decide how to handle the matter. You just don’t agree with
the approach that Congress took.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006
10:48 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject:
You assume that the placement of a drug on
Schedule I ends the discussion. I hope that you do not think that it is
jesting to suppose that that placement does not end the discussion. Congress
surely must have some sense of the consequences of its decisions (1) to place
the drug on Schedul
The Congress and the President that
enacted RFRA thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was a palpable, and not
lurking, constitutional error. On that point I agree with that Congress
and that President. But even if there were an error on the constitutional
point, it does not matter, unl
I think that it is too early to tell one
way or the other. Don’t forget that he has a wily antagonist, if that is
not too strong a word, in Justice Stevens.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006
11:24 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.e
The problem is just not the nature of the difficulties
teaching about religion necessarily raises, but also the problem of enforcement.
It does no good if the teachers will not abide by the resolution of the sticky
problems made by the appropriate school or other officials – including judg
fles me. It is not
possible. We ought not fail to do or allow something just because it can
sometimes be abused. And we ought not fail to teach something or allow
something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line
differently.
Steve
On Jan
We agree on the question of goals and
objectives, as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2. I still am not convinced,
however, that most teachers will be monitored, even informally, to make sure
that they act in accordance with our agreed upon goals and objectives.
It may be, in the final anal
se it can
sometimes be abused. And we ought not fail to teach something or allow
something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line
differently.
Steve
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Newsom Michael wrote:
This
is, of course, the central proble
Bobby, as they say in the ‘hood, “I
feel ya.” I couldn’t agree more that parenting and teaching
should be about teaching the child to develop thoughtful opinions
independently. I think, however, that there are many parents
and teachers who do not agree with us.
Some of the rhetoric band
1 - 100 of 354 matches
Mail list logo
