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
wrote:
I basically agree with Art. As Dworkin argues, it is the very
meaning of "taking rights seriously" that one is willing to accept
v
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.
@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:24 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: N.J. public transit employee fired for blasphemy
This case is easy
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" > wrote:
I agree that my examples
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" > wrote:
Per Sandys' and others' remarks, it seems to me if we think about
i
but see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Hale
On Jul 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Lisa A. Runquist wrote:
> The right to believe is absolute. The right to act on that belief is not.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual P
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, b
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 unabl
Doesn't the test have to be does the person understand the professional
standards and can and will the person conform her conduct to them? It can't be
based on belief.
Some doctors are young earthers and do not believe in evolution. They can
still treat germs and understand and conform their
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
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 org
i-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)
. I would have 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
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 that
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
g, but
> they shouldn't pretend the conflict doesn't actually exist.
>
> Eric
>
>
> --
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc.
___
To p
a funeral, or just does so with regard to a
> recently dead person, or what 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.
>
>
t 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.
> ___
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 of
cla.edu [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 sta
_
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this l
e
> 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
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
ere 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 of Int
t 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.
>
--
Pr
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 the
I haven't really kept up with decisions and actions in this area, but
the Supreme Court held that refusal of pregnancy benefits was not sex
discrimination and so it would seem that it would easily enough use
the same (il)logic to rule that there was no sex discrimination here
-- just run-of
On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Vance R. Koven wrote:
[snip]
After all, a parent's glowering is useless without at least the
implied credible threat of direct action if diplomacy fails.
This is a highly contestable statement at least to the extent it
implies the necessity of corporal punish
e up with reasonably objective
> standards for determining when it will leave parental decisions on
> discipline to the parents? Is a black eye to be treated differently from a
> black-and-blue bum? Are parents to be held prisoner by their children's
> (purported) eggshell
lcate personal humility, a virtue in many religious traditions,
that would offend outsiders. Are there any objective standards that
can be brought to bear here, or do the mores of the chattering
classes always prevail?
Vance
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steven Jamar
wrote:
Some time ag
Some time ago the mother was convicted of murder, and now the father
has been convicted as well. Their daughter had undiagnosed diabetes
and when she could not walk, talk, eat, or speak, they still did not
take her to the hospital, but prayed instead. He describes himself as
a born-again
I hope no one is seriously going to try to show that the Supreme Court
establishment clause decisions are consistent or even decided on the
basis of just one or a few principles consistently, even if the
results are inconsistent.
The Court has done worse in this area than ad hoc -- it has f
erriding instructions, judicially enforceable, 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 messag
gt; 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; pe
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 other
--
From: religionlaw-boun...@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 unders
Ives Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academc Affairs
> University of St. Thomas School of Law
> MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue
> Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015
> Phone: (651) 962-4918
> Fax: (651) 962-4996
> E-mail: tcb...@stthomas.edu
> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author='26
7;t see how this decision 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 Reli
I think Prof. Berg hits it about right as far as the possible breadth
of the decision, but, as is common, we don't really know what it means
until the next case. For my part, I don't read the court language as
very broad at all and I read the case as easily distinguishable from
most cases
//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
> wr
From the washington post (quoting prominent list participants)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html
And did everyone see Doug Laycock on the Daily Show? Sorry Doug.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Associat
not fear-mongering
just because we disagree on whether there is something to
legitimately be afraid of.
Brad
- Original Message - From: "Steven Jamar" >
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" >
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:05 PM
Subject: Re
It is quite a stretch to say someone must not discriminate in renting
property or providing secular services to say that religious
organizations and their officiants must perform an action like
marrying two other people contrary to their beliefs. We don't force
priests to marry a catholic
In other words, Rick wants us to ignore the distinction between
religion and secular and to repeal the establishment clause, leaving
only the free exercise clause. Let the government make its religious
speech, just like any other speech. Let government push any religious
point of view as
reak, servitude is at once the consequence
> of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
>
>John Philpot Curran, Speech upon the Right
> of Election of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, July 10, 1790
>
> This according to Bartlett's 16
Well done, Doug et al.
While the signers of the letter disagree on a topic or two in the area
of religious freedom and constitutional interpretation of the religion
clauses, there is a huge breadth of space over which they and I
suspect nearly all constitutional law experts agree. This is
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.
>
--
Prof. Ste
I would be sorely tempted to move for Rule 11 sanctions on this one.
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
some things are out of bounds -- divorce for example -- but it seems short
of that, most things could be handled as analogous to arbitration,
mediation, or negotiated settlement, i.e., contractual.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of
Thoughts?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403471.html?hpid=sec-religion
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc
cribe, 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 pos
ee
> 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
qually
working to get the religious exclusion in the statute? Or is there
something that bars them from exercising their political rights in the
representative democracy?
Not all of these hard and close issues need to be or even should be solved
on a hard
On Jun 28, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote:
> it is hard to imagine how tying a minor child down can be anything
> but a tort. Professor Lund seems to imply there is a religious
> exception to normal tort law for tying up and abusing children.
> what might that be?
Not to speak for
___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone c
nt decision, or
> just about binding arbitration (in whatever system, religious
> or otherwise, of their
> choice) for those parties who so agree by contract? I had
> assumed it was the latter, but maybe I'm mistaken.
>
> Eugene
>
>
> ___
This is an interesting issue that I am currently studying on a
comparative basis -- particularly in parts of Africa where you can
have all sorts of personal law (family and inheritance mostly)
determined by different systems. In Mauritania you can have the
general civil law, Islamic law, p
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 memb
But it is doing so (according to some) not on the basis of religion or
a religion per se, but rather because of some erstwhile other basis.
Does not intent matter here?
To me it seems to be both an endorsement and entanglement and also it
seems to stepping on free exercise.
But it is very
nge 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 l
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
Does the constitution require the state to allow this Muslim woman to run
when not wearing the proper uniform?
Steve
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503356.html?hpid=moreheadlines
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Will Linden wrote:
Meanwhile, Get Religion notes:
"Of the nine representatives, all Democrats, who voted against the
Christmas resolution, seven supported both the Ramadan and Diwali
measures.
Those seven were Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke, both of N
eople
to do things that they know are wrong.
I agree. But not irrelevant either.
Eugene
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:religionlaw-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:53 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: RFRA an
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.
>
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
ongly) forward the messages to others.
Become the change you seek in the world.
-- Mahatma Gandhi.
Steven Jamar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
Well, I guess the Pagans I know would disagree with this almost as
much as they disagree about the exact doctrine of Paganism or as
Christians disagree about various Christian doctrines.
Pagan does not mean just "not me" or just "not monotheists". The
Roman and Greeks were described by Chr
Agreed, Ed. Indeed, that is why I didn't even check as I usually would!
On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Ed Brayton wrote:
One of the seemingly infinite number of circulated emails full of
feigned outrage and false claims on this issue that litter our
inboxes. This list is the last place I woul
Most quotes on most memorials I see are edited in some fashion or
other -- if nothing else then by selection of what to include or not
include, where to start and where to end, and so on. I think the
exception is the Lincoln Memorial with the full Gettysburg Address
and full 2d Inaugural a
amisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
> 734-647-9713
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, un
cla.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 t
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
&g
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Paul Diamond wrote:
I must admit that I am with Professor Lund on this.
[snip]
3. Has anyone thought of the prisoner First Amendment rights!
What is prisoners are so willing to find a new life and answer to
their problems,- that they want to volunteer for th
message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list
If the state had been doing it directly, the state could not
reimburse itself, could it?
So it seems to me that seeking restitution here, in the absence of
fraud, is wrong and the 8th Circuit is right -- howsoever lax the
reasoning may be.
If PFM were representing that it would do one thi
Agreed as to the effect on the time place and manner aspect of the
intentional infliction of emotional distress tort. I think a general
statute prohibiting all picketing and demonstrations at or around
funerals would still be a constitutional time, place, or manner
restriction (and even Eu
to-the-exception mentioned in NYT v. Sullivan), but the reason
> Hustler's proviso that false statements (presumably about the plaintiff)
> are actionable makes sense is precisely that they fall within an
> exception.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL
1) Otherwise protected speech can't be regulated
> because it's "outrageous," and (2) there's no new First Amendment
> exception for outrageous speech that causes severe emotional distress.
>
>
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
If I understand Eugene correctly, intentional infliction of emotional
distress can never be constitutional unless what causes the distress
is pure conduct. So if there are a series of late night phone calls,
then there is speech and so there can be no IIED liability. Even if
the calls are
andy Bezanson
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:36 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Speech and conduct
>
> IIED can be treate
of privacy) is precisely the speech.
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionl
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
content-neutral* time, place, and manner
> restrictions.
They say that, but the "secondary effects" doctrine seems to undermine
it a bit, no?
Steve
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
To post, send message to Rel
e the family has a long record
> of attending church -- oh, heck, let's assume the soldier is himself a
> Returned Missionary for the Latter-day Saints church, and that his father is
> the current bishop of the ward. Which First Amendment Right gets honored?
>
--
ness' in the area of political and
> social
> > discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which
> would allow a
> > jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes
> or views, or
>
O. Conkle
> Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law
> Indiana University School of Law
> Bloomington, Indiana 47405
> (812) 855-4331
> fax (812) 855-0555
> e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of
ces the vagueness is such an important problem that it
> makes it hard to do the rest of the constitutional analysis, since it's
> so hard to tell just what speech the law will restrict, even if limited
> to cases where plaintiffs are private figures.)
>
> Eugene
://tinyurl.com/2n7voq
Steve
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
that violates the
> tenets of their faith. (By analogy, the free exercise interest of the
> religious pacifist is not in being exempt from a civil obligation of public
> service for two years of his life, it is in not having that service directed
> to killing people in war
My apologies to the list -- I have no idea how or why google put this
address into this private email!
Some bug in gmail I've run into once before.
Steve
On 9/23/07, Will Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's what YOU say!
>
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Steven Jam
-- they get the extra day for the final.
dad
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin
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
ges 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.
>
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School o
weapons into buildings.)
Are these situations legally distinguishable?
EC or FE?
Steve
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password
igionlaw
>
> 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.
>
--
/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 wron
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;
> p
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.
>
--
Prof. Steven
tions, or get password, see
>>> <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
religionlaw>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
viewed as
>>> p
Surely this can't be right, at least not as broadly as it is stated.
Surely the state can and indeed must choose any number of positions
that secularists advance without it being "discriminatory." Or at
least not constitutionally or statutorily illegally discriminatory.
Surely the state c
201 - 300 of 637 matches
Mail list logo
