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
Title: Message
Although I object (for religious reasons) to public prayers, such as
those before meetings of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, aren't
those of you who consider the Fourth Circuit's decision to be indefensible or
worse overlooking the distinctive nature of this part
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
