RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

Law Academics Subject: RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction       I define discrimination against religion as treating people or organizations worse because they are religious.  (I don't think anything I have said suggests that discrimination means "denying [a group] permission to do something

RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

ersistent," either.       Eugene -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:53 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction The

RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

gion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction       Cases such as Lamb's Chapel, Widmar, Rosenberger, Pinette, and many lower court cases all involved the government discriminating against religious groups -- groups that were quite likely religious minorities at

RE: Ten Commandments

I appreciate Mark's thoughtful post -- both for its substance and its tone. I think his post raises two issues -- 1. What is the social meaning of the display of the Ten Commandments? and 2. Is this a social meaning that the state is permitted to promote or endorse? As to the first, I recognize

Re: Ten Commandments

At 04:47 PM 3/2/05 -0500, you wrote: Out of historical curiosity, when was the phrase "Bill of Rights" first used?    Francisco Forrest Martin President Rights International, The Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc.     If I remember correctly, the PHRASE "Bill of Rights" was first use

Re: Ten Commandments

What federal building in Washington has something that would need to be sandblasted off?  I spent a decade looking, and didn't find anything.    Ed Darrell Dallas (now)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hesitate to

RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

gerent" -- then I would hope they'd be equally displeased with the Protestant Empire label.       Eugene   -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:51 PMTo: Law & Religion issues fo

Re: Ten Commandments

I have read these debates with interest. I was an expert in the Alabama case and have a forthcoming article in Fordham Law Review that is cited in some of the briefs. The article should be out very very soon. I have final page proof, however, and can e-mail it to anyone interest in reading i

RE: Ten Commandments

PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Ten Commandments I think Justice Scalia's point probably is that the social meaning of the display of the Ten Commandments, like the reference to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, is simply a re

RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

, March 02, 2005 6:56 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction   Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for: prayers starting school prayers at football games using religious arguments as superior to pos

RE: Ten Commandments

March 02, 2005 1:15 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments If the early news reports on today's oral argument are accurate, Justice Scalia argued that government may memorialize and endorse overtly and exclusively religious beliefs accepted by

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for: prayers starting school prayers at football games using religious arguments as superior to positive law young-earther anti-evolution creationism creches I do not recall seeing any Catholics or Jews pushing this as part of their agenda

RE: Ten Commandments

IL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:54 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Ten Commandments MSNBC has just published a somewhat detailed account of the oral arguments. I link to it here.   RickRick Duncan Welpton Professo

RE: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

; .) Tom Berg University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis _ From: Steven Jamar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 3/2/2005 2:11 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction US law on establishment is decidedly differ

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

Alan: I think this would be appropriate in a document like the Declaration of Independence, but not in every court decision that is handed down; doesn't it suffice to know that we have different laws, and that's why we have different results? The claim of the Declaration, though, is a universal

Re: Ten Commandments

4:24:54 PM Subject: Re: Ten Commandments In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:15:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Given that he is willing to leave it to the majority's discretion to determine whether the religious liberty of minorities should be protected against government in

Re: Ten Commandments

Let me add one thing to my last reply. I would agree that where we have a very clear understanding of the intent of the framers, we should certainly refer there first in terms of constitutional interpretation. I just don't think it's nearly as simple an application as many people pretend, nor i

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:15:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Given that he is willing to leave it to the majority's discretion to determine whether the religious liberty of minorities should be protected against government interference from neutral laws of g

Re: Ten Commandments

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here. You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the frieze represent the Ten Commandments

Re: Ten Commandments

If the early news reports on today's oral argument are accurate, Justice Scalia argued that government may memorialize and endorse overtly and exclusively religious beliefs accepted by a substantial majority of the polity -- without regard to history or context. Are those reports correct? Given

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:55:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, you are just wrong on this one in terms of what the "Bill of Rights" means. Enough already, and no more.  The term "Bill of Rights" means precisely whatever Humpty Dumpty says it means.  After all, he to

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here. You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the frieze represent the Ten Commandments. I realize that foolish consistency is t

Re: Ten Commandments

You think that at any time in the 20th century the term "Bill of Rights" referred to 12 articles instead of the first 10 ratified amendments? Let me see the history to prove that assertion. Your assertion on this list is the first time I have ever heard the US Bill of Rights as other than the fir

Re: Ten Commandments

MSNBC has just published a somewhat detailed account of the oral arguments. I link to it here.   RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow

Re: Ten Commandments

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they represent? If the artist who carved the frieze

Re: Ten Commandments

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:25:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, I think the link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended by the Court. Well, to the contrary, and I think the discussion o

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they represent? If the artist who carved the frieze isn't the authoritative source on what th

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:25:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, I think the link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended by the Court. Well, to the contrary, and I think the discussion of these issues is related to how we understan

Re: Ten Commandments

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour and explained to me at some length that the tablets in the front ar

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 2:45:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Those articles are not part of the bill of rights. Professor Jamar, I am prepared to read and weigh an argument justifying the assertion.  But the bare assertion is not sufficient.  I don't dispute Doug Layco

Re: Ten Commandments

Thank you, Gene, for your usual levelheadedness.  Jim, I think the link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended by the Court.  You, of course, may have your viewpoint.   Marci ___ To post, send message to Religionl

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 1:11:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not only that, but if you click on Mr. Hendersonâs link, and then âRead transcript,â followed by clicking the link to Amendments 11-27, it eventually notes that   Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour and explained to me at some length that the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather the

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour and explained to me at some length that the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather the

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

US law on establishment is decidedly different from that of most of the world. Indeed, most states do not have a prohibition on establishment, just a guarantee of free exercise. I do not think that the US needs to have establishment law as it does to preserve religious freedom, but as it has deve

Re: Ten Commandments

cc: Christine A Corcos/ccorcos/LSU) Sent by: Subject: Re: Ten Commandments

Re: Ten Commandments

For a narrative and pictorial explanation of the display of the bill of rights, see . ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

s for Law Academics > Date: 3/2/2005 2:16:03 PM > Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction > > I think there is a difference between "control" and having "a decent > respect to the opinions of mankind" which some of the framers seemed to > think was impor

Re: Ten Commandments

Those articles are not part of the bill of rights. On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 02:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mr. Henderson, what were  the other two articles? Article the First sets the number of r

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

Alan: True. The differnece is that the founders thought they were right and the rest of the world wrong. Richard Dougherty "A.E. Brownstein" wrote: > I think there is a difference between "control" and having "a decent > respect to the opinions of mankind" which some of the framers seemed to >

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mr. Henderson, what were  the other two articles? Article the First sets the number of representatives to at one for every thirty thousand until there is attained a total of 100 representatives, etc., etc.  

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

on to such customary law. Francisco Forrest Martin President Rights International, The Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc. > [Original Message] > From: A.E. Brownstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Date: 3/2/2005 2:16:03 PM >

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

I think there is a difference between "control" and having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" which some of the framers seemed to think was important in 1776. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote: It's a little hard to predict because I am not familiar with

RE: Ten Commandments

ject: Re: Ten Commandments The bill of rights refers in common and professional parlance to the first 10 amendments, not to amendments 1-12. Mr. Henderson, what were the other two articles? I looked at the webpage and still see only the first 10 amendments. I don't know whether the I-X

RE: Ten Commandments

. Henderson’s own “proof” would seem to contradict him.   Jeff     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:52 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments   The bill of rights refer

Re: Ten Commandments

The bill of rights refers in common and professional parlance to the first 10 amendments, not to amendments 1-12. Mr. Henderson, what were the other two articles? I looked at the webpage and still see only the first 10 amendments. I don't know whether the I-X is the 10 commandments or the bill of

Re: Ten Commandments

This site has some pictures. I tried the video but couldn't get it to run for me particularly well. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week824/cover.html Christine Corcos Associate Professor of Law Faculty Graduate Studies Program Supervisor Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State

Re: Ten Commandments

Jim-- I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour and explained to me at some length that the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather the "Bill of Rights," by which he meant the first ten amendments, of course.  It i

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/2/2005 8:06:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The I-X on the front panel is the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments. This is patent nonsense, and it was supercilliously silly of Justice Stevens to make the assertion today.   Why is it nonsense?   Yo

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that either of the displays in these cases is constututional? Of course both displays are constitutional.   After listening to oral argument

Re: Ten Commandments

Title: Re: Ten Commandments If it is going to be historical, perhaps the representation should be as in Exodus 32:15. Written on both sides of two tablets and probably in Hebrew. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family and Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite

Re: Ten Commandments

I was at the Pew Forum event. Doug was indeed excellent, as was Jay Sekulow arguing the other side. My prediction, like Art Spitzer's, is that Justice O'Connor will vote to uphold one but not both displays (and Justice Breyer may join her). O'Connor famously does this kind of splitting (think

Re: Ten Commandments

On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 08:39 AM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Even if that is true, to only put  the Ten C. is historically inaccurate and to claim it is "historical" is pretextual.  Of course it is. But my point was, again, that the Court could well do exactly that no matter how much you m

Re: Ten Commandments

Just to make clear where I stand, again. I think the display of the 10 commandments is a violation of the establishment clause. Period. I was responding to the question about predicting what the Court might do by in part sketching a way in which the Court might do it and justify itself in doing

Re: Ten Commandments

Even if that is true, to only put  the Ten C. is historically inaccurate and to claim it is "historical" is pretextual.  Put up a monument with great law givers from history and Moses gets in there (not the Ten C. however); but he would be one of many.  If you put up the 10 C alone then you hav

Re: Ten Commandments

Moses is one of the figures in the Supreme Court.  Of the Ten Commandments, though, only 2 are included--  the prohibitions on murder and adultery.  The I-X on the front panel is the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments.       Steve Jamar wrote: plus Moses is on the mural in the Suprem

Re: Ten Commandments

Two displays suggest how such displays ought to be done, and what the heritage is that they display.  The collection of bas reliefs in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives, circa 1935, shows the influences on western and especially American law.  It includes Moses, but of course it also

Re: Ten Commandments

Well, first, I said "juridical", not "judicial." Second, our laws have come from somewhere, and that somewhere includes, in part, Moses. Hence heritage. On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Since the court has NEVER cited the 10 C or hte Bible as legal authority for

Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction

It's a little hard to predict because I am not familiar with  European views about displays of the Ten Commandments, and those seem to control the meaning of the US Constitution.   Rick Duncan     Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red S

Re: Ten Commandments

Since the court has NEVER cited the 10 C or hte Bible as legal authority for anything, I am curious how it can be part of our judicial heritage? Steven Jamar wrote: I think the Court could dividedly say that the 10 Commandments are part of our juridical heritage and we use history and traditio

Re: Ten Commandments

In a message dated 3/1/05 9:15:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey, I'm simply trying to prompt worthwhile conversation -- please feel free to answer whichever questions you think are most interesting! Four Justices will find both displays unconstitutional; Four Justices will find both displays

Re: Ten Commandments

; ; "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: Ten Commandments >I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that >either of the displays in these cases is constututional? Marty: Do you mean are

Re: Ten Commandments

>I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that >either of the displays in these cases is constututional? Marty: Do you mean are they constitutional, or will they pass muster with the current Court's understanding of what is consitutional? Those can be very different

Re: Ten Commandments

I think the Court could dividedly say that the 10 Commandments are part of our juridical heritage and we use history and tradition to justify some things and we have no coercion here and some accommodation could creep in, and state sponsorship is attenuated; plus Moses is on the mural in the Suprem

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

, 2004 12:20 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position I think the current use of the claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, or at least the way I understand this phrase in its strongest sense, is that  the Ten Co

Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

and don't flourish in some places that are very Christian Paul Finkelman Newsom Michael wrote: Message But how do you explain the fact that law and morality flourish in some societies that are neither Christian nor Jewish?   -Original Message---

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

Title: Message But how do you explain the fact that law and morality flourish in some societies that are neither Christian nor Jewish?   -Original Message- From: Mike Schutt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:22 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law A

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

The Decalogue has certainly provided religious and moral support for laws against murder, theft, fraud, and perjury (though such laws probably would have existed in any event). It may also have had other substantial indirect effects on our law. For example, the command to honor the Sabbath

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

aw & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" PositionMike Schutt wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two.   I think what is traditionally meant by the "basis of our laws&qu

Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

Francis J. Beckwith wrote: Ed, are you suggesting that believing the 10 commandments are from God is irrational? If so, not only should the 10 commandments be banned from public places, we should be telling our young people that its divine source is suspect and to believe that way shows a lack of i

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

Academics >Subject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position > > >Sandy: There is NO reason to believe that Roman law was >affected by the >Ten C. Nor is there much evidence that American law was >affected by the >10-C; except perhaps to rejec

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

a way of thinking inspired people as diverse as James Wilson and Martin Luther King, Jr. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:55 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject

Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

man Law is the basic source of most European civil law. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:

Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

Title: Message Mike Schutt wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two.   I think what is traditionally meant by the "basis of our laws" position is the following:   1.  The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstr

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

amatic way.      -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. BrownsteinSent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:11 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" PositionWhen Mike writes that "The

Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

When Mike writes that "The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact," he is expressing a position with significant sectarian implications. For traditional Jews, the entire Tora

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

Dear Sandy: The idea of "the state" IS a theological proposition, friend. God bless you. JL -- John Lofton 313 Montgomery St., Laurel, Maryland 20707 Home Phone: 301-490-7266 Work Phone: 410-766-8591 Cell Phone: 301-873-4612 Fax: 410-766-8592 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]       [EMAIL PROTECTED] _

Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

I think the current use of the claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, or at least the way I understand this phrase in its strongest sense, is that  the Ten Commandments are our law's foundation in two senses: (1) Our laws are derived historically, conceptually,

RE: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position

Title: Message   Mike Schutt writes:   1.  The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact.      If anything is a theological proposition (that should not be taught by the sta