statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature
Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in
a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building?
From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com
To: Law Religion issues
Sunnum handles this, no?
Sent from Steve's iPhone
On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
Inevitable.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212)
Sandy and Marci,
I agree my conversations were not and should not have been privileged. But it
is not the case that non-believers cannot be helped by priests either in a
priest/pentitent setting or less formally.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
I agree that this provision cannot really be defended on any sound theoretical
basis in the face of an establishment challenge. But I see 5 or more votes for
this being upheld because it is just a modern updating of the old idea of the
manse, clergy house, parish house, rectory, vicarage —
You all are making me more and more fond of Smith and less fond of RFRA than I
ever thought possible!
Smith analysis: ACA is a neutral generally applicable law and the employer
cannot claim a free exercise violation because it requires coverages they don’t
like.
RFRA: few have considered
Brad and Eugene,
How does compellingness analysis work when the government tortures people and
kills civilians with drones and invades Iraq, all of which are against my
religious beliefs and yet makes me pay for them?
This is a serious question. I’m not a great fan of Smith (nor of RFRA,
We've wandered far from religion -- but that is very wrong, Z.
You own the copies -- the specific photos that you purchased. And if you
photographer gave you negatives (in the old days) or a CD with electronic
versions you can copy or print from (semi-old days) or access to or electronic
Sent from Steve's iPhone
On Aug 25, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Len campquest...@comcast.net wrote:
I am absolutely certain because that is what is stated in the purchase
agreement.
Thanks,
-Z
From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
I have some modest sympathy for the speech argument. None at all for the
religious discrimination argument.
Why someone would want a photographer who doesn't want to do it is beyond me,
but then I take photography more seriously than most and we paid to have one of
the best wedding
Can someone who thinks the decision wrong explain the difference between this
case and an interracial marriage or a Catholic photographer refusing to do a
Jewish or Muslim or Hindu wedding? What is the principled distinction? I
can't find one.
What is the difference between this and a
FWIW, I don't think this is an easy case nor one that our legal doctrine or
structures handles well. I think the best way for a photographer to handle
this is just to refuse for no reason. That is not the same as doing it for an
illegal reason. I am not satisfied that that is a good solution
Well, it would also violate the 13th Amendment, but who's counting.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and
Social Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax:
I'll bet the photographer is still in business. As would those making cakes. If
you choose to engage in civil disobedience, there is a cost. If you choose to
follow your religious prejudices in some settings, there is a cost.
Interracial marriages and interfaith marriages are indistinguishable
I think citing to a listserv discussion without confirming with the author is
bad form unless one is simply crediting an idea that one is using that one
first learned on the listserv. I think using an idea posted as a foil (or
worse) without giving the author the opportunity to clarify and
On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Jean Dudley jean.dud...@gmail.com wrote:
In other news, how 'bout Indiana? They just reduced the penalty for same-sex
couples applying for a marriage license from 3 years to 18 months. The
$10,000 fine stands. Any clergy who solemnizes a same-sex marriage
Just a matter of line drawing. Logic is insufficient to the task.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and
Social Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax:
Ok. Some aspects of the freedom of religion are subtle and complicated.
Compelling participation in the pledge of allegiance and retaliating for
non-participation are not in that category. And yet, both a biology teacher and
assistant principal harassed a student in Montgomery County, Maryland
Extremism in enforcing laws and harrassing minorities is not limited to any
particular location on earth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/french-mother-on-trial-for-son-jihads-t-shirt/2013/03/22/dd5c2016-8eef-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Jesus meets 21st Century IP.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and
Social Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
I do not
Haven't done it for a few years, but here is link to my syllabus.
Basically, I do a fast survey of issues in the first few weeks, help students
pick topics, then have students do 2 presentations -- a presentation of their
paper with a power point in the last weeks and a topical presentation
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/parents_claim_grade_school_yoga_classes_are_first_amendment_violation/?utm_source=maestroutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=weekly_email
but creche displays (with Santa nearby) and in god we trust and under god
are not?
How about pilates? Could the kids do
On Dec 8, 2012, at 4:45 AM, Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com wrote:
There is nothing medical about DNA testing for identification – no more than
the taking of fingerprints.
You are assuming the meaning in your characterization of identification and
medical. Is DNA typing like blood typing or is
How is taking DNA to determine parentage not a medical test?
Clearly after Smith there is nothing here other than RFRA. Is forcing a
medical test a substantial burden? Not under what a lot of courts seem to be
saying of late, though it would be from the parent's position I have no doubt.
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/12/10/103197P.pdf
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
Rick,
I understand the first part -- on which much of the disagreement has centered.
(One can make the distinctions some are advocating, but should one is the hard
part (for some). Drawing the line elsewhere makes more sense to others of us.)
But I'm not sure how the second part works. If a
No. The logic of the decision could be pushed that far in a parallel universe
or by faculty like us who may indeed inhabit a parallel universe, but such a
case is so easily distinguishable from a commercial business as to be
essentially irrelevant.
Steve
On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Rick
CJ Roberts is correct to look at the substance and not the word. In substance
it is a tax. It is not a penalty.
On Oct 1, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Ilya Somin wrote:
This argument ignores the fact that the problem with the tax argument for the
mandate was never that it was not for the general
So it is just a question of line drawing after all.
A. Is it at taxation with taxes paying for things you don't like?
B. Or is it paying a salary or wages that will be used by some for things
you don't like?
C. Or is it providing mandated benefits for things you don't like?
I appreciate the analysis, Mark. But don't agree that every religion gets to
decide where to draw the line on responsibility for remote effects of its
actions any more than I get to draw the line on proximate cause because I view
it differently from Anderson and Cardozo. I don't have to agree
As I noted in an article some long time ago, there are (at least) 3 interests
at stake in employment cases -- society's interest in non-discrimination and
availability of employment for people; the employer's interest in practicing
his or her faith in the workplace; and the employee's interest
a substantial burden.
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:10 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA Mandate
that churches can close their schools
and hospitals and missions to the poor, and experience no burden on their
religon.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:10:06 -0400
Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote:
As I noted in an article some long time ago, there are (at least) 3
interests at stake
How about an employer being exempt from buying insurance, but then paying a tax
that goes into a pool for the government to buy group insurance for those
employees. How is that substantively different from just requiring the
insurance benefit in the first place? And yet this sort of tax
?
I think the judge got it right here and that the alternatives are not
necessarily good for free exercise in the bigger picture.
Steve
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:32:10 -0400
Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote:
I was quite clearly talking about religious employers in secular commerce
be unconstitutional. I'm just asking if
the burden would be different.
Art Spitzer
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote:
How about an employer being exempt from buying insurance, but then paying a
tax that goes into a pool for the government to buy
Of course the law burdens religious exercise -- if you take religious exercise
to that extreme meaning. If you choose to take it to that extreme, then you
cannot be in that line of work or you must pay the penalty for engaging in that
kind of work.
You can't simply ignore civil law because
I find the court's argument strong here. You pay a salary, you pay FICA, you
pay unemployment insurance, you pay pension benefits, you pay vacation time,
holidays, and so on. And you provide health insurance benefits. Some of those
who have health insurance will use contraceptives. Just
Ok. So, let's assume that Tom wants Suri raised a Scientologist and Katie does
not (assume that the irreconcilable difference was over what religion (if any)
to inculcate Suri with). Is that cognizable in court or is that a religious
issue not subject to court review?
I know we've discussed
100% correct.
On Jul 1, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Eric Rassbach wrote:
I'd be interested to know what the list thinks about the reasoning of the
recent decision by a state appeals court in Cologne holding that performing a
circumcision constituted the crime of bodily harm (similar to battery).
I think our levels of scrutiny are too involved and that there are too many. I
think the court stumbled upon a way forward in the abortion limitation cases
with the undue burden test. It changes the focus properly to the the fact
that almost any regulation will burden somebody's liberty or
I think Mr. Clark's statement and apparent inability to see the potential for
mischief of RFRA is troubling and supportive of Prof. Hamilton's point. As a
former litigator, I get the sense that some on this list are too dismissive of
the impact of making claims that ultimately may fail, but
There are actual cases of it being used as a defense. Abuse of RFRA is not in
itself enough to not have such laws, but it is also something not to be ignored
in considering the wisdom of and form of a RFRA. Nor should its use to permit
or even encourage discrimination against groups be
Obviously the man lives in flatland and the woman in sphereland.
:)
On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Will Linden wrote:
This straight out of C.S. Lewis' Bulverism essay, where young Ezekiel
Bulver hears his father argue that the angles of a triangle add up to 180,
and his mother retort You say
And France clearly pushes a form of universalism as a national value in a way
this country has not for some time.
On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu
wrote:
The french experience with intolerance is very different than ours and thu
leads to different
. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ)
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http
something here?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:10 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Cabbies vs. lawyers
Of course it is a proxy -- just
For the record, I was in favor of the accommodation attempted for the Somali
Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis and am in favor of most accommodations of
religion done by employers and public agencies and the government in general --
even quite odd ones like this particular interpretation of the
their request into religious discrimination.
Mark
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Steven Jamar [stevenja...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 8:18 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law
I hope it comes as no surprise to anyone on this list that there are
irreconcilable doctrinal problems with religious liberty no matter how one
looks at it. Religious motivation matters. Particular facts matter. Details
matter. Eugene's hypothetical restaurant is not analogous to the
It is hard to set up such a system for cab drivers -- think of cabbies waiting
at an airport where 6 in a row refuse passengers based on their possession of a
bottle of wine. It may be a longish wait or even a very long wait for the
non-discriminating cabbie. Or just hailing one on the street
An exemption is an accommodation to a person or set of persons or institutions
wanting their practices to be accommodated through not requiring them to abide
by the rules applicable to everyone else. That is in all meanings of the word
an accommodation. It is being left alone, but in a
Are not the cabbies discriminating against customers on the basis of religion?
Or is the alcohol proxy enough to remove that taint?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
In a sense this may be obvious, but it might be worth
On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:34 AM, Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Eugene?! Wow! :)
Law of general applicability was again Scalia shooting from the hip, as
he makes quite clear in his concurrence in Hialeah. It could mean, in
theory, any number of things including:
1. Any
large objects (and I think there are some instances where permits can be
obtained to exceed the stated maximum).
** **
Thus, I wonder, are these the tests for finding a law not to be of general
applicability?
** **
Jim Maule
**
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School
sort of pretext or
sincerity standard to limit the intrusion.
Will there be many cases really? It seems to me that BFOQ and the minister
exception will, in nearly all instances, be capable of relatively easy
application, unclouded by *Smith* language.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard
Interesting. I look forward to seeing the problem.
self.promotion.alert I wrote an article on copyright and freedom of religion
-- Religious Use of Copyrighted Works after Smith, RFRA, and Eldred, 32 Cardozo
L. Rev. 1880 (2011)-- which probably has little relevance to whatever the
actual
My apologies of the cross posting.
Prof. Leslie Griffin will be presenting at a colloquy at Howard University
School of Law on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 in the Murray Conference Room from
12:15-1:30. Light lunch will be provided for those who RSVP by Monday.
The topic is the ministerial
What is the effect of the teacher being a social studies which probably
includes some civics instruction -- at least in my school district the social
studies classes consider current events every year no matter what the main
focus of the course is that year. Surely the gay rights issue is one
or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ)
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe
that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ
(rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ)
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Isn't the emphasis on speech on a matter of public concern in a public place
really the Court limiting the scope of its opinion rather than creating new
rules? That is, in this case, under these circumstances, we just won't go so
far as to allow a tort to stop such speech.
But, in a more
Snyder v. Phelps, 8-1.
C.J. Roberts:
Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech
in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private
concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case.
1. Isn't it easy to avoid the hate speech by avoiding the calumny of all
Muslims and just report the facts?
2. What defense do you have for such race/religion/ethnic slurs?
3. Truth is what here - that all Muslims do in fact engage in honor killings?
Or that just Muslims do? Or that there
This wasn't an academic study with empirical conclusions.
On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
3. But say that it’s false, and that this behavior isn’t more
common among Muslims than among others. How can we possibly know that, if
it’s a crime to challenge this
to hear one now.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:08 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing
Is contract law shorthand? Or should we spell out all provisions of the UCC
and common law contract of the particular state? Or can we just say law of
the state of North Carolina?
If we can say law of North Carolina will govern, we can also say law of
France or law of Saudi Arabia or law
It seems there are a number of discrete issues involved.
1. Can an arbitration agreement require that sharia be applied under a choice
of law provision -- it would seem so to me. Some seem to see entanglement.
2. Can an arbitration agreement require that arbitrators be knowledgeable
about
What if it said apply Brazilian law and appoint only lawyers admitted
to practice in brazil?
Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:08 AM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
What if the agreement said African Americans or women only?
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in
Eugene, do you contend that knowledge of the Sharia is not a valid limitation
or only that being a Muslim is not?
On Jan 3, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
must know the Shari'a, commercial laws and the customs in force in the
Kingdom
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
I suspect that the contract also specifies that it is to be interpreted and
applied and enforced according to Sharia law of the Wahabi school and Saudi
Arabian law where the Sharia is not determinative.
While I am far more familiar with much of sharia law than most American lawyers
and
FGM is not Islamic at all. It is a cultural phenomenon. It, like the chador
and other cultural things, got linked to Islam over centuries of relative
isolation.
Steve
On Jan 3, 2011, at 9:35 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
Point of clarification--So genital mutilation is culturally Islamic
If you don't separate religious from civil, the question becomes nonsensical.
Contracts are to enforced under the sharia -- as a matter of religious
obligation.
Separation of religion and state systems is not the only viable system. But it
may well be the best.
If a contract in Saudi Arabia
Simplest establishment standing case ever. Disfavoring one religion is an
establishment violation -- that gives anyone standing. Of course the current
court could change the rules and restrict standing in this area as they have in
others. Since it is at least theoretically possible that
, and the like have likewise all stressed the objectors’ “frequent
regular contact” with the offending inscriptions and symbols. Or am I
missing something here?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven
This case is easy if one accepts the legitimacy of regulating and in
some instances curtailing hate speech.
I know Eugene does not.
Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Marie A. Failinger mfailin...@gw.hamline.edu
wrote:
Per Sandys' and others' remarks, it seems to
Response of the audience is relevant in fighting words and defamation,
no?
Relevance does not always equal control.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is audience mediated, no?
Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Brownstein, Alan aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu
wrote:
I
Art, I guess we should not make driving intoxicated illegal under your
theory. Or do you mean to suggest we don't go far enough already?
Many can play the absurdist game. From many sides.
Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:35 PM, artspit...@aol.com wrote:
Sandy,
I agree.
Not every camel's nose under the tent leads to the collapse of the tent.
Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Sanford Levinson
slevin...@law.utexas.edu wrote:
I basically agree with Art. As Dworkin argues, it is the very
meaning of taking rights seriously that one
Many people do indeed pray to God on Sunday and prey on people on Monday. But
many people believe in not separating their lives in that way. So, no. The
refusal or inability to separate one's values from work should not bar someone
from a job. Inability to do the job should. If one is
As an athiest attorney, some of my most interesting clients were evangelical,
fundamentalist, born again Christians (their description of themselves). They
prayed for who should be their attorney and according to them, I was the chosen
one.
The story is in fact a bit more involved than that,
But is it a constitutional violation? I would tend to agree that the
government ought to accommodate religious associations and give them
equal access to government facilities and should grant religious
associations exemptions from certain non-discrimination rules that
apply to secular
Hastings is not stopping the message. It is stopping an action. It
is not preventing CLS from saying anything it wants to say. It is
preventing it from discriminating on a basis the university considers
improper.
Christian students are allowed full participation in the life of the
law
that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc
In a society committed to non-discrimination and equality, the
government should not be required to subsidize hate groups and groups
that exclude other on prohibited bases.
There are plenty of private places to meet.
And if the society wants to change the policy, it can do so -- unless
it
the constitutional issue here, not wise policy.
Steve
On May 11, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Lisa A. Runquist wrote:
On 5/11/2010 8:05 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:
In a society committed to non-discrimination and equality, the
government should not be required to subsidize hate groups and
groups
gone the other way, but, unlike some
decisions, I don't consider Rosenberger particularly harmful or
problematic -- except insofar as the lack of somewhat more clear lines
is always problematic.
Steve
On May 11, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Lisa A. Runquist wrote:
On 5/10/2010 8:21 PM, Steven Jamar
actually exist.
Eric
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
have you -- that's fine, and the question
would then be what the exact boundaries of the exception are, and how the
exception can be defended. But libel law does not offer a helpful analogy.
Eugene
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute
Modern blasphemy law in a western liberal democracy!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/02/AR2010010201846_pf.html
the Athiest Ireland blaspheming quotes:
http://www.atheist.ie/
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute
[mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Steven Jamar
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:38 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: FW from Chip Lupu: Elane Photography
true. but why is compelling state interest the standard here?
I don't
Article 19 provides for l limiting
speech on certain bases.
Of course any standard can be abused. And even clear law can be
ignored.
But aspirational resolutions to reduce hate speech and increase
tolerance are to be applauded, not declared disasters..
Steven Jamar
Howard Law
cross-posted
more whether there are many faiths or
only one. The current US alignment of secularists minimizing free exercise
and conservative believers minimizing disestablishment is a very recent
development.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute
I'm not sure how paul arrives at his characterization of my response
to an inquiry of another in which I sketch a possible way a court
could go wrong.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that even though Gilbert was overturned by
legislation, the legislation did not in fact reach the illogic of
differently from a
black-and-blue bum? Are parents to be held prisoner by their children's
(purported) eggshell psyches?
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc
, are
the only solution.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
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.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ
...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar [stevenja...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:14 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Snowbowl decision
Tom,
I understand the points in your brief and think it well done.
My question relates
/author='261564
Weblog: http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc
affects
anyone other than sacred space types.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
101 - 200 of 496 matches
Mail list logo
