him off
list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .
Tom Berg
_
From: Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Tue 6/22/2004 4:29 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Huntington in WSJ re "Under God"
Returning from a few days out of town, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:02 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Huntington in WSJ re "Under God"
Well, if you state it as a tautology, there isn't much to say about it. But
I would think that the underlying premise -- that non-Christia
also help because I have no intention here of
rehearsing the argument.
-Original Message-
From: Will Linden
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004
8:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Huntington in WSJ re
"Under God"
At 04
At 04:01 PM 6/16/04 -0700, you wrote:
outsiders today in contemporary,
secular America. And I hear it a lot from the far Right and the far Left
that Jews run the country and the media -- that we are the ultimate
insiders. And what about minority Christian denominations like Christian
Scientists, J
n issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed Jun 16 16:59:15 2004
Subject: Re: Huntington in WSJ re "Under God"
An odd piece. The author doesn't distinguish between being a minority and
being an outsider. He doesn't distinguish between the experience of
difference that
Title: Re: Huntington in WSJ re "Under God"
I take his point to be simply that religious outsiders may feel like outsiders because they are outsiders. A pretty uncontroversial point as far as it goes, if not often said in polite company. More interesting is the tacit corollary, a
An odd piece. The author doesn't distinguish between being a minority and
being an outsider. He doesn't distinguish between the experience of
difference that arises when private individuals and institutions espouse
beliefs and engage in practices that do not parallel one's own beliefs and
pract
Long op-ed of likely interest to list members:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110005223
Sent from the BlackBerry Wireless Handheld of:
Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.
Vice President & General Counsel
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 605
Washington,
Is the transcript of the oral arguments in Newdow on
line yet? Does anyone have a link?
Cheers, Rick Duncan
=
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow Galahad or Mordred; middle
L PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Under God"
My argument (or more accurately my questions) aren't limited to the
public
school context. But I think the issu
-
From: Mark Modak-Truran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Under god
I find the dialogue between Steve and Mike quite informative regarding
the debate on the foundation of fundamental rights. I sense that Stev
Steve,
Please share the cite to your Article. I also share you interest and
appreciate for Aristole and Rawls.
Mark
Mark Modak-Truran, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Law
Mississippi College School of Law
151 East Griffith Street
Jackson, MS 39201
(601) 925-7159
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EM
Yea, I'm a bit of a believer in the Rawlsian "overlapping consensus"
and in using Aristotelian rhetoric as the best means of civic discourse
to get there. Even wrote an article touching on the subject.
No time to comment on the rest of the interesting post from Mark.
Steve
On Friday, April 2,
Thanks Mike. A couple of responses are compelled by your note - to
highlight the difference in perspective.
1. Defining the "inherent worth and dignity of each person" is a
theological proposition. And it is probably the most broadly religious
of any foundation of human rights.
Well, it may be a
lly free in France, England, and the
United States. In comparison, Christians and atheists are not so
politically free, even in Saudi, Syria, and Iran, for example. I agree;
it matters to religious freedom.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
2, 2004 10:48 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Under god
Well, some of us argue that the foundation of rights is indeed more
than "the current choice of the governed and the governors."
Some of us argue that rights are premised on the inherent worth and
Well, some of us argue that the foundation of rights is indeed more
than "the current choice of the governed and the governors."
Some of us argue that rights are premised on the inherent worth and
dignity of each person.
Some of us argue that rights are premised upon a broad consensus of
peopl
In a message dated 4/1/2004 11:15:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it is not obviously an unreasonable line of reasoning, and itis the sort of understanding some of the Founders had about our rights and their relationship to God.
The reasoning of which the abov
would or should be)
unconstitutional?
Mike Schutt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis
Beckwith
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:16 PM
To: Religion Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: "Under God"
Michael makes some good points.
Michael makes some good points. But I believe that the plausibility of his
points--namely, that there have been "sins" and we can detect them by
investigating history--shows that we have an intuitive awareness of moral
principles that are not contingent on time or circumstances, for we employ
them,
In a message dated 4/1/2004 5:24:32 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the time of Jefferson's bill, when
the U.S. was very much a Christian nation, Jefferson's preamble was pretty
inclusive.
And I find Madison's fighting to keep the "Jesus" amendment out of the bill, and J
(812) 855-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subj
If America was -- and still is -- the Protestant Empire that I believe
it to be, it would seem to follow that Beckwith is right. The phrase
"under God" arguably reaffirms that fact.
I, of course, am not a fan of the Protestant Empire, for reasons which
should be fairly clear to most of the read
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:25 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Under God"
I appreciate Tom's timely response -- but I'm c
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Under God"
I appreciate Tom's timely response -- but I'm certainly willing to wait
for
a response to this post until Tom completes his travels.
I have considerable sympathy for Tom's suggestion that if
. And I suggest alternatives like a pause to
allows students (with their parents' guidance) to add the phrase they feel
is appropriate.
Tom
_____
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/31/2004 11:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Under G
omington, Indiana 47405
(812) 855-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
-Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Modak-Truran
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/1/2004 11:12:26 AM >>>
If opt-outs are insufficient on that score, however, I suggest that we
should see them as insufficient to protect the believer who cannot
pledge loyalty to the nation without explicitly stating that it is under
God. (In some ways, the situation is wor
udents (with their parents' guidance) to add the phrase they feel
is appropriate.
Tom
_
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/31/2004 11:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Under God"
I'm not s
In a message dated 3/30/2004 7:12:30 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bryan Wildenthal includes the following notation in his posting:
Thomas Jefferson School of Law (a school named for a President, need I point out, who would have been deeply troubled by a state-mandated "und
chool of Law
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
(812) 855-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Modak-Truran
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:06 PM
To: [
nd relevance, of
there
being some reality out there above it.
These steps would be far better in principle, in my view, than what
Newdow's
side is asking for.
Tom Berg
***
Thomas C. Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law
Mail # MSL 400
1000 La Salle Avenue
Minneapolis,
side is asking for.
Tom Berg
***
Thomas C. Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law
Mail # MSL 400
1000 La Salle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015
Phone: (651) 962-4918
Fax: (651) 962-4996
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
********
-Original Message-
From: Mark
oublesome, and I agree
that
"under God" in the Pledge might fall into category 3. So for the
moment,
what I'm interested in is his (or others') views on category 2, as in
the
Civil Rights Act hypo.
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)
_
From: P
erely articulate a religious
rationale for liberty and justice, but calls on citizens to affirm that
rationale (even if it doesn't engage in full-fledged coercion).
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue
In response to the posts of Tom Berg, Frank Beckwith, Gene Summerlin, and with apologies to anyone else expressing similar arguments who I've failed to mention, consider the following:
Tomorrow, no Friday since tomorrow is April Fool's Day, the New York Times, oh yes, the Washin
versity of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)
_
From: Paul Horwitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 3/30/2004 7:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: "Under God"
I don't mean to take on here all of Tom Berg's argument for "under God,"
which
Professor Beckwith says his point is about ontology, not justification. But then he goes on to say "'under God,â though deniable ontologically, is a reasonable understanding of the grounding of our rights." The language of "grounding our rights" seems to trade on both an ontological sens
Ed
writes:
The U.S. government
is expressly "under" a higher authority. The Preamble to the Constitution
is explicit that the government is "ordained" by the people. That word was
not chosen lightly, or with disregard to the view that ordaining is something
done religiously.Jefferson wr
Ed Darrell writes:
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration that just governments derive their
powers from the consent of the governed, not from God. The Constitution
reaffirmed that view.
My response:
Yes, government gets its powers from the consent of the governed, under the
theory set forth in the
Ah, philosophy!
One can see things in human nature and not say that they are from god. One can assert natural rights without claiming they come from god.
It surprises me how utilitarian the argument for "under God" has become - it is useful to limit government by explicitly saying it is subjec
On 3/30/04 8:57 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 3/30/2004 7:08:25 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> Bobby Lipkin presents an argument that government can be humane, in the
>> sense of not inflicting suffering or cruelty -- and, w
In a message dated 3/30/2004 7:08:25 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bobby Lipkin presents an argument that government can be humane, in the
sense of not inflicting suffering or cruelty -- and, would he add, can
recognize something called basic rights? -- without the governmen
Title: Re: "Under God"
“Justification” has to do with “epistemology.” I’m raising an ontological question about the nature of rights. One can certainly be justified in believing that one has rights without ever having an argument or reasons. For example, my grandma was pretty su
ED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: "Under God"
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:06:34 -0600
Bobby Lipkin presents an argument that government can be humane
if it doesn't engage in full-fledged coercion).
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 3/30/2004 9:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Under God"
In a message dated 3/30/2004 8:5
Title: Re: "Under God"
But why “under” anything?
-Original Message-
From: Francis Beckwith
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:50
AM
To: Religion Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: "Under God"
I think it’s relevant in this regard: the
In a message dated 3/30/2004 8:50:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, it can put in the form of a question: If not âunder God,â then under what?
Why must there be an "under" anything? Although the existential condition of being "under" nothing might generate a c
Title: Re: "Under God"
I think it’s relevant in this regard: the notion of religious liberty seems to have been predicated upon a particular view of rights and persons that depends on God as law giver and source of morality. So, one may view the “under God” insertion in the pledge
Title: Message
This message
may seem odd, because it responds to a posting on another list! Sorry. -
Dan Conkle
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Conkle, Daniel O.Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004
8:11 AMTo: Law & Religion issu
50 matches
Mail list logo
