[lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:10 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
I may have more to say on this point later, but for now this'll have to
suffice:
First, Doug may be correct
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
There is a huge difference between the Church's teaching on contraception
(which is clear), and its views on the permissibility of participating in an
insurance scheme that covers contraception for employees who would likely
Derek Gaubatz’s post concludes with a point that is too often lost in the sound
and fury about the imposition of the abortificient/contraception mandate on
employers of faith – which is that the mandate is dubious public policy (even
on its own terms) and this dispute could have been avoided
With all respect, I think I disagree strongly with Gregory Sisk's email
below. I am amazed at how accommodating this country is of minority
religious groups. To be sure, sometimes the religious lobby loses to other
lobbies, but it wins often enough that it is evident that minority
religious groups
Professor Sisk’s post epitomizes many of the inaccurate assumptions that led to
the enactment of the women’s health provisions in the first place. Let me try
to address a few of the most important points:
1. The distinction between “medically-indicated” (non-contraceptive) uses of
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Professor Sisk's post epitomizes many of the inaccurate assumptions that led to
the enactment of the women's health provisions in the first place. Let me try
to address a few of the most
Greg Sisk's post quite stunningly asks for mutual respect for the
contending concerns in the contraceptive mandate cases, and then (just as
Greg Lipper wrote) minimizes the concern for women's health and well-being
that explains the contraceptive mandate. The safest and most effective
The question is not about access to health care or to contraception. No one
proposes to ban contraception or withdraw it from the market. Access to
contraception for those who cannot afford it is already widely available
through both government and private efforts. Government subsidizes
Academics'
Subject: RE: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
The question is not about access to health care or to contraception. No one
proposes to ban contraception or withdraw it from the market. Access to
contraception for those who cannot afford it is already widely
, February 17, 2014 6:35 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Reply To: Greg Lipper
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Professor Sisk’s post epitomizes many of the inaccurate assumptions that led to
the enactment of the women’s health provisions
Here is a NY Times letter to the editor from Mark Rienzi about the Little
Sisters of the Poor and the form that the Court thus far has excused them from
having to sign, taking issue with a Linda Greenhouse column:
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Fair questions. Legal academics do not operate in an isolated ivory tower, but
rather in the public sphere. Law professors, after all, are primarily
responsible for crafting and supporting
RFRA from an early stage
@lists.ucla.edu
*Subject:* Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation?
Sincerity
Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame,
as opposed to its officials, and the officials' actions are irrelevant? And
that the actions of its co-religionist officials
: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Is Doug correct as a legal matter
22903
434-243-8546
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
*On Behalf Of *hamilto...@aol.com
*Sent:* Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
*To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
*Subject:* Re: Notre Dame-- where's
Two points of clarification that I think may be helpful:
1) One of the most important consequences of the HHS mandate is that a far
greater number of Catholics now have a better idea of what the Church's
teaching is on contraception and other life issues than they did before,
which makes the
Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Richard Dougherty
Date:02/16/2014 2:07 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame, as
opposed to its officials, and the officials' actions are irrelevant
Of
hamilto...@aol.commailto:hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame
Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
There is a huge difference between the Church's teaching on contraception
(which is clear), and its views on the permissibility of participating in an
insurance scheme that covers contraception for employees who
Re Marci's assertion that the slippery slope is perpendicular if for profit
corporations are recognized to be protected under RFRA, it seems to me that we
don't have to just rely on the rhetorical speculation of Marci and the Obama
administration in its brief. Instead, we have, as Marty has
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Does anyone know whether the trustees of Notre Dame perhaps interpreted Pope
Benedict's remarks in his meeting with them in Rome on Jan. 31 as being a
reference to Notre Dame's position
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 6:32 pm
Subject: RE: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Let me add
:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame, as
opposed to its officials, and the officials' actions are irrelevant
-Original Message-
From: Richard Dougherty dou...@udallas.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Two points of clarification that I think may
I don't know how the argument about family size connects to the legal issues,
but for the record:
Marci's ten to twenty number is based on what demographers call natural
fertility. That's where a couple makes no effort whatever to limit conception.
The phrase comes from my demographer wife,
Somebody had a column in Slate about how American businesses did not file
amicus briefs supporting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. He seemed to think
this somehow cut against them.
What it shows is that most businesses think they have no stake in this
litigation. They don't see any religious
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
I may have more to say on this point later, but for now this'll have to suffice:
First, Doug may be correct that there is no doubt about what the Church's
teaching is about the morality
-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
1) I was unaware there was such an ethos. It does not seem to be a terribly
strong one.
2) Yes, churches, religious institutions, and indeed all other institutions,
including law schools, liberal nonprofits, and so on are subject to
institutional
@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu,
kurtla...@gmail.com kurtla...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
1) I was unaware there was such an ethos. It does not seem to be a terribly
strong one.
2) Yes, churches, religious institutions
]
on behalf of Marc DeGirolami [marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: kurtla...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
With respect, I do not understand the comment below about
, February 15, 2014 11:16 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Fair questions. Legal academics do not operate in an isolated ivory tower, but
rather in the public sphere. Law professors, after
...@aol.commailto:hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 6:31 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu;
kurtla...@gmail.commailto:kurtla...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
Marty raises a critical issue
In a liberal and tolerant society, I would also suggest that, absent some
particularly compelling circumstances, the government should not burden either
law professor by making them take the action they believe would render them
morally culpable for someone else's wrongdoing.
Which again makes
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rienzi, Mark L
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity
The exchange between Marci and Marc about moral complicity
35 matches
Mail list logo
