With all due respect, I have said repeatedly that Smith's theory of
republican democracy underlying religious rights supports my reading of its
support for the relative competencies of the legislative and judicial branches
on these issues. Republican democracy is not legitimate when
Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 11:49
AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Religion-only
accommodatio
As I've said repeatedly, legislatures are far from perfect. But they
are institutionally more competent to assess the public good than courts
are. They are also more accountable. I have no vested interest in
seeing accommodations denied, and support many, but the blind accommodation
Michael-- I
appreciate your thoughtful responses and questions. My responses are
interlineated. On the Protestant empire question, we will have to agree
to disagree. It is my view that it has been deconstructed, in the
Derrida sense, for a good while.
It is not helpful to lump
As I've said before, Iwould not read the"clergy exception"
quite so expansively. It is not a shield of autonomy from legal
accountability, but rather an acknowledgment that an adult clergy member has
clearly assented to a religious institution's rules and requirements, so that
when
This sent me to CORPUS JURIS HUMOROUS IN BRIEF for the
judgement in Bass vs Aetna, where the plaintiff was knocked down by
someone running in the spirit. While the insurer claimed on
behalf of Shepard's Fold Church of God a defense of assumption of risk
and contributory negligence, the Louisiana
:
'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'Subject: RE:
Religion-only accommodation question
I don't know much about this and want to learn more. Are religious
institutions really able to use judicial or legislative exemptions to defend
themselves against crimes of physical or sexual abuse
Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wed 4/6/2005 8:42 PMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Religion-only accommodation
question
I completely disagree
on how much John Stuart Mill adds to the discu
Labeling religions "majoritarian" and "minority" is both bootstrapping and
inaccurate. There is no majority religion in the United States. For
your purposes, I would think the better classification would be politically
powerful and politically powerless.
Religions have been responsible for
On Friday, April 8, 2005, at 11:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Labeling religions majoritarian and minority is both bootstrapping and inaccurate. There is no majority religion in the United States.
I guess, then, that Christianity does not constitute a religion. I assume what was meant was
Thanks, Steve. That is a helpful elaboration. There is no
single Christian religion, but rather hundreds, if not thousands, of
denominations. It is a category without meaning especiallyin the
U.S., which was settled and founded by Christian denominations thatheld
radically different beliefs
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:15
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religion-only
accommodation question
Labeling
religions majoritarian and minority is both
bootstrapping and inaccurate. There is no majority religion
There's an important
distinction between claiming that thereis no single Christian religion, on
the one hand, andthat Christianity "is a category without meaning"
on the other.The distinction clearly arises, I think, by asking two
questions.First, to whom is the category meaningless? It's
>From some perspectives, the only meaningful difference among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is when they stopped accepting new prophets-- Christianity with Jesus, Islam with Mohammed, Judaism (not stopped yet). All look to Moses, all claim a belief in one god, all started in the same part of
Bobby-- You are right. That is what I meant, and while it is a
criticism that can be levelled at any term, it is an important criticism in the
current climate of the culture wars in the U.S. A lot of freight has been
riding on "Christian," as in this is a "Christian" country. The term in
I wish that were true, among academics, among religious entities, and
lawmakers. But it is not. The defaultposition for
accommodation and free exercise jurisprudence among most academics and religious
entities is one that focuses solely on the needs of the religious entities --
which, in
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April
08, 2005 11:15 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religion-only
accommodation question
Labeling
religions majoritarian and minority is both
bootstrapping and inaccurate. There is no majority religion in the United
States
]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005
9:43 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religion-only
accommodation question
I completely disagree on
how much John Stuart Mill adds to the discussion. His views are part and
parcel of a great deal of American law, including tort, criminal
I completely disagree
on how much John Stuart Mill adds to the discussion. His views are part
and parcel of a great deal of American law, including tort, criminal, and
regulatory law, and they are equally relevant in the Free Exercise
context. As to what question is on the
10:07
PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religion-only
accommodation question
I did not use
the term right when it comes to religious entities, because I was
talking about conduct and there is no constitutional right to engage in
conduct. There are constitutional rights
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:02
PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religion-only
accommodation question
There
is little question that religion deserves and in the Constitution requires
unique treatment, and that religious liberty is a high
I did not use the term "right" when it comes to religious
entities, because I was talking about conduct and there is no constitutional
right to engage in conduct. There are constitutional rights to believe
whatever one wants, to engage in religious speech, but conduct is in a
20036
202 349-7208 (phone)
202 955-0090 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 4:31 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religion-only accommodation question
I think we
rprotected
as your email supposes.
-Original Message-
From: Derek Gaubatz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:42 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religion-only accommodation question
The problem I see is that it seems to me that many (if not all
There is little question that religion deserves and in the Constitution
requires unique treatment, and that religious liberty is a high value. But
to then characterize the laws that come into conflict with religious conduct as
enacted for the "needs of the modern state" is to avoid what is
would be quite relevant, wouldn't it?
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: 3/30/2005 11:15 PM
Subject: Religion-only accommodation question
California law essentially bars private
Yes. I have been arguing that the Leonard Law is unconstitutional since it
was enacted. If it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause under Texas
Monthly, it should be struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint
discrimination in favor of religion and a violation of the Free Speech
Clause under
Avenue, NW, Suite 605
Washington DC 20036
202 349-7208 (phone)
202 955-0090 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:57 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Religion-only
] On Behalf Of Derek Gaubatz
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:27 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religion-only accommodation question
There may be good reasons to find the Leonard Law to violate
the free speech or association rights of private secular
schools
31, 2005 3:02 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religion-only accommodation question
Derek: Is your argument that religion-only accommodations (by
which I mean exemptions from some law for all religious objectors -- so
not denomination-specific exemptions
Academics
Subject: RE: Religion-only accommodation question
I'm not persuaded that it matters or should matter.
Virtually any religious accommodation (e.g., Amos,
accommodations for religious peyote use, etc.) could be cast
as providing a competitive advantage to the religious
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 3:02 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religion-only accommodation question
Derek: Is your argument that religion-only accommodations (by
which I mean
California law essentially bars private high schools from
discipling pupils for the content of their speech, unless the speech
falls within an exception to First Amendment protection. The law,
however, does not apply to any [institution] that is controlled by a
religious organization, to
33 matches
Mail list logo
