Will,
Sorry for the delay in response. I have been in Branson the last two days.
Religion, as such, in not the business of government. As James Madison wrote
in his "Detached Memoranda" (noted in Everson v. Board of Education):
"Strongly guarded ... is the separation between Re
What meaning do you ascribe to the word "free?"
-- Daniel Bort
___
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
Voluntary. The absence of government: "No religious test" and "no law respecting
an establishment of religion." Religion is not to be established by law or
government at any level. Government is the essence of coercion. The essence
of the religion commandments of the Constitution is voluntarism
No, because you have not explained how "exercise" and "free exercise" are
different. If anything short of "total" prohibition (per your invocation of
the Word of Webster) is constitutional, you seem to be saying that the
"free" in "free exercise" has meaning only as a sort of "most favored sect
Will,
Forgive me for repeating. The meaning of the words of the Constitution's
religion commandments is to be understood as plainly written: the word "religion"
means "religion," and the word "thereof" means "religion," nothing more and
nothing less. "No religious test shall ever be required a
The question is not whether the government can restrict people from putting into action certain beliefs. It can. The question is under what circumstances the government can do so. Gene takes an approach that gives the government a lot of room to limit exercise of religious beliefs, as did the S
ork 11418-1597
Voice (718) 847-6764
FAX (718) 847-7392
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene
GarmanSent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:36 PMTo: Law &
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re:
Discrimination
Will,Forgive me for repeating. The meaning of
Steve,
Government can restrict people from putting religion or nonreligion beliefs
into action. No discrimination involved. Specific religion and nonreligion
actions can be prohibited or abridged by the laws of society. The question
is not under what circumstances government can do so. Governm
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene
GarmanSent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:26 PMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re:
Discrimination
Steve,Government can restrict people from putting religion
or nonreligion beliefs into action. No discrimination involved
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gene
Garman
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:26 PM
To: Law& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re:Discrimination
Steve,
Government can restrict pe
Mr. Garman, You are missing the point made by Gene Summerlin, at least as I understand it. He is not asserting that his extreme reading is any more accurate than yours, just that like yours, it is a possible, but not the only possible, reading.There are many, many cases in which the Court has inde
t: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:45 AMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re:
Discrimination
To Gene Summerlin:"Congress cannot prohibit, at all, the free exercise of
religion"?Do you really assert the "free exercise of
religion" commandment a
solaw.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gene
Garman
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:45 AM
To: Law& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re:Discrimination
To Gene Summerlin:
"Congre
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene
GarmanSent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:26 PMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re:
Discrimination
Steve,Government can restrict people from putting religion or
n
n Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gene GarmanSent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:26 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Discrimination Steve,Government can restri
Steve,Government can restrict people from putting religion or nonreligion beliefs into action. No discrimination involved. Specific religion and nonreligion actions can be prohibited or abridged by the laws of society. The question is not under what circumstances government can do so. Government c
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005
10:46 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Discrimination
If
"prohibiting" so clearly meant "totally," Gene would not
have to insert "totally" into the s
E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Gene Garman
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academic
Some interpretations: Congress cannot forbid the free exercise of religionCongress cannot stop all exercise of religionCongress may limit the exercise of religionCongress may limit the exercise of religion in any way it wants so long as it doesn't prohibit itCongress is forbidden from regulating r
Gene Garmin says:
"Too bad Madison did not leave specific commentary as to the significance
of the use of the different words "prohibiting" and "abridging" in the same
First Amendment. I guess he figured most Americans would understand the meaning
of the words used or would use Webste
Professor Laycock,
James Madison did discuss the establishment and free exercise clauses in
his Report on the Virginia Resolutions and explained the obvious, that
is, the First Amendment was a limitation on the power of the national
government, specifically Congress. Regardless of any wording
Your repeated invocation of "Webster's" seems to claim that there is a
One True Dictionary, which is to be accepted as legal authority.
Webster's Third International does not contain the word "totally" in
either definition of "prohibit". But perhaps that is not the "Webster's"
that Madis
In a message dated 11/22/2005 9:09:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Webster's Third International does not contain the word "totally" in
either definition of "prohibit". But perhaps that is not the "Webster's"
that Madison purportedly "expected" people to use?
We
s published. Attacks on the edition
were published in major newspapers and in magazines. An anthology was
published including the attacks and the responses.
Bob O'Brien
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
In most of the country, none of your fevered speculation would matter
because conservatives, including several "academics" on this list, have
opposed extending non-discrimination laws to include sexuality, much less
gender identity (or if they would so cobble such protections with large
carve outs
Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options
So you delete me but not Mr. Linden...why should I expect anything else
from you Mark...
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Scarberry, Mark <
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote:
> Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
>
Ditto
- Original Message -
From: "Scarberry, Mark"
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:37:43 -0800
Subject: RE: Discrimination and divination
> Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pe
one. But you're highly unlikely to be able
to do that simply by asserting that it's the only plausible one --
you're much likelier to prevail if you confront the other
interpretations and explain why they're mistaken.
The list custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EM
My apologies for the delay responding, but I thought I'd say a few
more words about Marty's post.
1) Before getting to the theory, let me explore a concrete example
inspired by Marty's statement that "whatever the rules are for political
speech, it should be constitutional for the state t
How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
As a strict constructionist of the Constitution and in rejection of some
confused Court opinions, there is no conflict between the religion
commandments of the Constitution. The men on the committee which
produced the final wording of the First A
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene Garman
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech
How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
As a strict constructionist of the Constitution a
ay, November 16, 2005 10:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech
How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
As a strict constructionist of the Constitution and in rejection of some
confused Court opinions, there is no
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene Garman
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech
How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
As a strict constructionist of the Constitution and in
Does your contention that religious exercise can not be "totally
prohibited", but can be "abridged" mean that "Lukumi" was wrongly decided,
since the city banned all "religions" from engaging in aniumal sacrifice?
Or do you leave room for the "religious gerrymander" argument?
Don't we run int
l Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Linden
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:36 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech
Strange, I got just the opposite impression from Gene's
Eugene wrote on 11/21/2005 11:18:15 AM:
> For instance, does it mean "Congress shall make no law totally
> prohibiting all religion, so that no religion may be practiced"?
If so,
> Congress could outlaw Catholicism, on the theory that it's not
> prohibiting religion generally, only one religion.
I think this might be a very important case -- or,
at the least, an omen of things to come, in a range of cases involving
charitable choice, school vouchers, etc. Indeed, it's the classic "Wiccan"
hypo -- that many of us have been invoking, and wondering about, in various
discussions of all
erman
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:47
AM
To: Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Against Wiccans; Simpson v. Chesterfield County
I think this might be a very
important case -- or, at the least, an omen of things to come, in a range
of cases involving cha
Speaking of discrimination against Wiccans:
"Calif. Boy Says He's Suspended for Makeup"
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7495484/)
A ninth-grade student has accused officials at a Southern California
high school of discrimination for suspending him for wearing lipstick
and eye makeup.
James Herndon,
am co-counsel for Child Evangelism
Fellowship in the Montgomery County Public Schools case.
Kim Colby
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
LedermanSent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:47 AMTo: Law &
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Discrimination Ag
meetings in which they will pray and
learn to embrace the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?
- Original Message -
From:
Kim Colby
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics'
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 9:34
AM
Subject: RE: Discrimination Against
Wicc
There is a meanginful difference between discriminating against one religion among many religious contenders and discriminating against all religions to avoid establishment.
The validity of seeing the two cases as distinct does not resolve how either should be resolved.
Nonetheless, like Marty,
I agree that this is an indefensible decision. (I would probably have
described it as shameful, but indefensible will do.) But it does
illustrate the problem with the argument that government may display
religious symbols and sponsor religious activities such as prayer as long
as it does so in a
Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of A.E. BrownsteinSent: Friday, April 15, 2005
12:07 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: Re: Discrimination Against Wiccans; Simpson v.
Chesterfield CountyI agree that this is an indef
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, West, Ellis wrote:
> [snip] If, however, the reason for these prayers
> is because the members of the Board truly want divine guidance or
> blessing from the deity in which they believe, the God of the
> Judeo-Christian faith, [snip]
Does that count as a *secular* purpose??
-
From: West, Ellis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:50
PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Discrimination
Against Wiccans; Simpson v. Chesterfield County
Although I object (for
religious reasons) to public prayers, such as those before meeting
alf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:17
PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: RE: Discrimination Against Wiccans; Simpson v.
Chesterfield County
I can’t imagine that
it is constitutionally permissible for public officials to have prayers said
for
Title: Re: Discrimination Against Wiccans; Simpson v. Chesterfield County
Just let them wait until I get home. Thanks.
--
Von Keetch
Sent from my Blackberry Wireless
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
Title: Re: Discrimination Against Wiccans; Simpson v. Chesterfield County
My apologies to the list for sending the previous email. Sometimes my Blackberry gets the better of me.
--
Von Keetch
Sent from my Blackberry Wireless
-Original Message
utterly
unconstitutional.)
-Original Message-
From: West, Ellis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:03
PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Discrimination
Against Wiccans; Simpson v. Chesterfield County
Aren't these kinds o
y be
writing petitions for en banc review and certiorari - surely groups from
across the spectrum should get involved.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Kim Colby
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April
15, 2005 8:34 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for
Law
ement that the Fourth Circuit has set
forth in its cases.
Tom Berg, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)
_
From: David Cruz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 4/15/2005 1:13 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Discrimination Against Wiccans; Simpson v. Ch
forth in its cases.
Tom Berg, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)
_
From: David Cruz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 4/15/2005 1:13 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Discrimination Against Wiccans; Simpson v. Chesterfield County
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Wes
I know this isn't a full answer; but the issue is not whether or not a
woman can use birth control for cramps, etc. as far as I am aware.
Further, the issue is who pays for the contraception, not whether the
contraception can be used.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:50 AM, wrote:
> The Court has no
All of Marci's hypotheticals are loaded up, because they involve direct
imposition on women's behavior (wear head scarves, don't use certain
medicines or drugs) rather than just refusing to pay for the relevant
goods. And Marci's claim that Hobby Lobby and others are engaging in
religious discrimi
The government *is *relying upon women's equality -- not only health -- as
one of the compelling interests. This makes sense, since presumably most
(but not all) employees would pay for contraception ut of pocket, rather
than go without.
As for whether an employer's failure to cover contracepti
Chip-- it might be a standing issue regarding the religious discrimination but
I still think it has legs because, eg, a Presbyterian is having her job
benefits limited solely according to religion that she doesn't share, in
contravention of both economics and health standards. Shaping a compen
Marty- one addition --women will also have to pay for oral contraceptives to
stop excessive bleeding, cramps, and hormone- triggered acne. I think this
discussion needs to factor in the medical uses beyond contraception for
millions of women over the course of their lives.
Marci
Marci A. Ham
4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Ira Lupu
Date: 11/27/2013 8:14 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was "Patently Frivolous")
All of Marci's hypotheticals are loaded up, b
This may or may not be relevant to the constitutional question, but I think
it's likely that the religious employers in these cases would not object to
providing coverage for those medications if prescribed for non-contraceptive
purposes (because contraception would be a secondary effect).
Mark
.@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was "Patently Frivolous")
All of Marci's hypotheticals are loaded up, because they involve direct
imposition on women&#
There is at least one district court decision upholding the EEOC's view of
the PDA. See Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1271-72
(W.D. Wash. 2001):
Having reviewed the legislative history of Title VII and the PDA, the
language of the statute itself, and the relevant case law, th
I certainly hope they will rely on these statutes which are evidence of (1) the
ingrained and ongoing persistence of gender discrimination across society and
in private institutions; (2) the need to be vigilant as these hard-fought
rights can be compromised at any time; and (3) this religious li
or='261564
> Weblog: http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com
> --------
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Ira Lupu [ic
Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was "Patently Frivolous")
Tom-- they are not opposed to the Pill?
Marci A
t; From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:32 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Discrimination under
: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:10 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was "Patently Frivolous")
So how does it work? The women need pre approval from their boss?
And I t
The medications which are normally prescribed for birth control purposes,
which we commonly call contraceptives, also have other uses, which uses may
be perfectly harmonious with Catholic teaching. I am not aware of any
prescription drug plan offered through a Catholic organization that does
not c
(A) Say a Jewish religious organization insists on hiring only religious
Jews (even of only slight religiosity), a status that is much easier for
ethnic Jews to acquire than for non-ethnic Jews. Is that covered by the
sec. 702 exemption?
Under cases such as Wuerl, the answer appears to be "yes,
Certainly the state has no business dictating to an organization the
criteria for being a Jew (matrilineal; degree of observance; appropriate
beliefs; etc) or being of any other faith. The reasoning behind the
ministerial exception would preclude such a determination by the state,
would it not?
Marty: I appreciate the basis for your doubts as to (A). But
if it’s not correct, then I take it that Jewish religious institutions just
couldn’t get the benefit of sec. 702 at all, given that -- as best I can tell
-- the standard Jewish understanding is precisely that an ethni
iple?
>
> Eugene
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:39 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law
Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
I have to say that I find Steve's analysis more sound and based on common sense.
Marci
On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:07 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"
mailto:vol...@
e
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:39 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Ac
Might I suggest another way of looking at this debate: race. Not the race of
the drivers and that of their passengers. instead i take it as common ground
that no one would tolerate taxi drivers turning down passengers on the basis of
race. Does it follow that we should treat all prohibited groun
I have to say that I find Steve's analysis more sound and based on common
sense.
Marci
On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:07 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" wrote:
> I think the analysis below is mistaken: Whether or not cabbies’ refusal to
> carry alcohol should be barred by some general common-carriage require
Yes, Eugene, I think you are missing the essential point that common carriers
are not the same as other employers and when it comes to choice as to serve or
not serve, they are more limited in what they can and cannot do. They are
bound by more than non-discrimination laws. Or that is how I al
ehalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:40 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
Yes, Eugene, I think you are missing the essential point that common carriers
are not the same as
isagree with any of these points or Eugene's initial point. I think he
was focused in a different direction.)
Best,
Chris
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:26 PM
To: Law & R
.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:01 PM
To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: Re: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
Might
Steve writes that "religious motivation matters," for purposes
of making an action taken with religious motivation illegal when the same
action taken with secular motivation is legal. I see no basis for that in
antidiscrimination law, which generally bans discrimination against
82 matches
Mail list logo
