s School of Law
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg, Richard
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:26 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
My own pe
tionable? Or maybe a bit of both?
Richard Dougherty
-Original Message-
From: "Christopher Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent 7/25/2008 9:16:51 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'"That kin
unwilling to accept any religious display as
unobjectionable? Or maybe a bit of both?
Richard Dougherty
-Original Message-
From: "Christopher Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent 7/25/2008 9:16:51 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer
ECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:16 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
"That kind of jockeying for government recognition of particular
denominations-- or for an implicit government statement rejecting su
hment Clause was
supposed to prevent.
Howard Friedman
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jean Dudley
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name&#x
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jean Dudley
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
> Pro
d Friedman
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jean Dudley
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschm
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 7:37 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
> Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point! (Albeit in more colorful
> language :).
>
> Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non-
> sectarian religion as "the government's favored religion" or "
Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point! (Albeit in more colorful language :).
Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non-sectarian
religion as "the government's favored religion" or "the government's favored
non-sectarian god."
ON THE CONTRARY, our form of go
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
> Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I
> believe seems to involve whether a government can pray, at all. We
> all agree individuals can pray, and the First Amendment protects
> indivi
n this context should be unconstitutional.
Alan Brownstein
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: Appeal
(o) 414-288-6908
(m)414-213-3957
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:15 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus'
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
TECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:19 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I agree with some of the points Professor Esenberg makes, but just to be clear,
the result in this case wouldn't change if governmental prayers in Jesus&
D] [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 agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without
invoki
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
CTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:15 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Well actually, the court of appeals did not ban prayer in Jesus' name.
Nor did the City of Fredericksburg ban prayer in Jesus' name. Praye
onlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Well actually, the court of appeals did not ban prayer in Jesus' name. Nor did
the City of Fredericksburg ban prayer in Jesus' name. Prayer in Jesus' name is
continuing all over the c
n. The only way to fix
this is to reconsider Marsh v. Chambers.
Quoting Gordon James Klingenschmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Press release below. Please forward widely. Please call for
interviews!
> In Jesus,
> Chaplain K.
>
>
>
Klingenschmitt
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:07 PM
To: UCLA Law Class
Subject: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Press release below. Please forward widely. Please call for interviews!
In Jesus,
Chaplain K.
------------
Appeals Court Bans Prayer
AIL PROTECTED]>:
> Press release below. Please forward widely. Please call for interviews!
> In Jesus,
> Chaplain K.
> ------------
>
> Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name'
>
> Contact: Chaplain Klingenschmitt, www.PrayInJes
Press release below. Please forward widely. Please call for interviews!
In Jesus,
Chaplain K.
Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name'
Contact: Chaplain Klingenschmitt, www.PrayInJesusName.org, 719-360-5132 cell,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WASH
22 matches
Mail list logo
