Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9

Lawrence VanDyke lvandyke at law.harvard.edu
Sun Apr 11 21:39:46 PDT 2004


Hey Mark - I subscribe to the UCLA religion and law listserv (which I
find pretty depressing, not just because a couple of the law professors
have taken Leiter's side against me in the past).  But this is really
funny.  Scroll down and look at messages number 4 & 5!!  This is not
what you want to have happen to you!! :)  Hilarious! Especially cuz this
Newsom guy is one of the ones that wrote something agreeing with Leiter.

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
religionlaw-request at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9

Send Religionlaw mailing list submissions to
	religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	religionlaw-request at lists.ucla.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	religionlaw-owner at lists.ucla.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Religionlaw digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Auto Response from samulond at ajc.org (samulond at ajc.org)
   2. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael)
   3. Auto Response from foltinr at ajc.org (foltinr at ajc.org)
   4. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael)
   5. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael)
   6. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael)
   7. RE: FYI An Interesting Case (Newsom Michael)
   8. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Amar D. Sarwal)
   9. Re: FYI An Interesting Case (Paul Finkelman)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: samulond at ajc.org
Subject: Auto Response from samulond at ajc.org
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Message-ID: <18226901.1081624059050.JavaMail.root at imta28>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I will be out of the office until April 14, 2004, and will not be
checking email regularly while I am away. If you need assistance prior
to my return, please contact: Kara Stein at steink at ajc.org or (212)
891-6742.  




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:54:50 -0400
From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
	<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <890ADD22C42C7844901242ED27AC568D0BE0D4 at controller2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

1.	Actually "homophobia" refers to FEAR, not hatred, of gay people.
2.	Are you suggesting that the employee in this case loves gay
people?  What is your authority for such a claim?  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:adsarwal at dcappeals.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:47 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case
 
Again, he did not say that gay people were of less value.  Instead, as I
gather, he was not willing to express any support for their homosexual
orientation/conduct/choice.  Christians are commanded to love all, no
matter how they have sinned.
 
Are you saying that one must find worth in the gay
orientation/conduct/choice to not be considered a homophobe?
 
To be clear, my understanding of the term homophobe is one who hates
homosexuals.  I don't think this gentleman qualifies.
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu
<mailto:mnewsom at law.howard.edu> >
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu <mailto:religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> >
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
 
No, I didn't miss the point.  The employee's religious beliefs prevent
him from affirming the value of gay people.  I call that homophobia.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:adsarwal at dcappeals.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:48 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case


I think you're missing the point.  The gentleman was not homophobic.  He
just had no interest in affirming values with which he disagreed.  A
related
example:  I am not anti-Muslim, because I do not believe in Allah, nor
do I
wish to affirm his existence or value.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu
<mailto:mnewsom at law.howard.edu> >
To: <nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com <mailto:nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com> >;
"Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics"
<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu <mailto:religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> >
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


To the extent, and only to the extent, that AT&T Broadband failed
explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective
functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right.  Surely AT&T is
entitled to have a harmonious work environment for ALL of its employees,
both gays and homophobes.  And it should be given some latitude in
achieving that objective.  The devil is in the details, I suspect.  I'll
feel more confident about this case -- one way or the other -- after I
get a chance to read it cover to cover.


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> 
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040411/2e753f8
c/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: foltinr at ajc.org
Subject: Auto Response from foltinr at ajc.org
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Message-ID: <7428403.1081702562619.JavaMail.root at imta23>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The offices of the American Jewish Committee will be closed on Monday,
April 12, and Tuesday, April 13, in observance of the concluding days of
the Passover holiday.  I will not have access to e-mail on those days.  

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:58:27 -0400
From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
	<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <890ADD22C42C7844901242ED27AC568D0BE0D5 at controller2>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Keeping Eugene's thoughts in mind, I will not respond to this stuff on
the listserv.  Rick's comments below do nothing to further the goals and
objectives of this listserv but merely his own personal agenda, to which
I will respond off line. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Duncan [mailto:nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


--- Newsom Michael <mnewsom at law.howard.edu> wrote:
> No, I didn't miss the point.  The employee's
> religious beliefs prevent
> him from affirming the value of gay people.  I call
> that homophobia.

It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you
from affirming the value of Christians who believe
that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call
that Christophobia and religious bigotry.

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 either Galahad or
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered."  --The Prisoner

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:01:10 -0400
From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
	<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <890ADD22C42C7844901242ED27AC568D0BE0D6 at controller2>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Rick, you are so full of #@#$%!!!!!  I am a Christian, but I don't buy
into your right wing #!@#$%.  (I also suspect that my Catholicism is
something that you can't handle.)  No one on this listserv is more
ideological or bigoted than you are.  Anybody who disagrees with your
right wing views is a bigot.  It's like the pot calling the kettle
black.  You are a hateful bigot and a disgrace! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Duncan [mailto:nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


--- Newsom Michael <mnewsom at law.howard.edu> wrote:
> No, I didn't miss the point.  The employee's
> religious beliefs prevent
> him from affirming the value of gay people.  I call
> that homophobia.

It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you
from affirming the value of Christians who believe
that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call
that Christophobia and religious bigotry.

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 either Galahad or
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered."  --The Prisoner

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:03:24 -0400
From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
	<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <890ADD22C42C7844901242ED27AC568D0BE0D7 at controller2>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I made a terrible mistake and hit the wrong button.  I blew up at Rick
Duncan, and meant the message to go only to him.  I am asking Eugene to
pull it, for my intention, again, was to respond to Rick and Rick alone.


-----Original Message-----
From: Newsom Michael 
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:58 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case

Keeping Eugene's thoughts in mind, I will not respond to this stuff on
the listserv.  Rick's comments below do nothing to further the goals and
objectives of this listserv but merely his own personal agenda, to which
I will respond off line. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Duncan [mailto:nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


--- Newsom Michael <mnewsom at law.howard.edu> wrote:
> No, I didn't miss the point.  The employee's
> religious beliefs prevent
> him from affirming the value of gay people.  I call
> that homophobia.

It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you
from affirming the value of Christians who believe
that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call
that Christophobia and religious bigotry.

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 either Galahad or
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered."  --The Prisoner

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:10:52 -0400
From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
	<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <890ADD22C42C7844901242ED27AC568D5DA067 at controller2>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I see that my timing was off, as my inability to hit the right button.
I apologize to everybody on the listserv for this diatribe.  Again, I
tried to send it to Rick only.  Again, I apologize.  Neither Rick's
remarks nor my response to Rick have any business on the listserv.  But
I take responsibility for losing my cool. I cannot promise that I will
never lose my cool again, but I promise to learn how to hit the right
button on these computers.  

To Eugene, in particular, I owe an apology, and I hereby extend it.  I
really did try to do it right, but didn't.  I don't handle attacks on my
integrity well, and I need to avoid losing my cool, even though provoked
mightily by Rick.

-----Original Message-----
From: Newsom Michael 
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case

Rick, you are so full of #@#$%!!!!!  I am a Christian, but I don't buy
into your right wing #!@#$%.  (I also suspect that my Catholicism is
something that you can't handle.)  No one on this listserv is more
ideological or bigoted than you are.  Anybody who disagrees with your
right wing views is a bigot.  It's like the pot calling the kettle
black.  You are a hateful bigot and a disgrace! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Duncan [mailto:nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


--- Newsom Michael <mnewsom at law.howard.edu> wrote:
> No, I didn't miss the point.  The employee's
> religious beliefs prevent
> him from affirming the value of gay people.  I call
> that homophobia.

It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you
from affirming the value of Christians who believe
that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call
that Christophobia and religious bigotry.

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 either Galahad or
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered."  --The Prisoner

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:24:00 -0400
From: "Amar D. Sarwal" <adsarwal at dcappeals.com>
Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
	<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <001d01c41fe9$c82ab6a0$0200a8c0 at computer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


I think the term has evolved to mean hatred of homosexuality.  As for
whether he loves them or not, I cannot say.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Newsom Michael 
  To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
  Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:54 PM
  Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


    1.. Actually "homophobia" refers to FEAR, not hatred, of gay people.

    2.. Are you suggesting that the employee in this case loves gay
people?  What is your authority for such a claim?  
   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:adsarwal at dcappeals.com] 
  Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:47 PM
  To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
  Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case

   

  Again, he did not say that gay people were of less value.  Instead, as
I gather, he was not willing to express any support for their homosexual
orientation/conduct/choice.  Christians are commanded to love all, no
matter how they have sinned.

   

  Are you saying that one must find worth in the gay
orientation/conduct/choice to not be considered a homophobe?

   

  To be clear, my understanding of the term homophobe is one who hates
homosexuals.  I don't think this gentleman qualifies.

   

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>

  To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>

  Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:57 PM

  Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case

   

  No, I didn't miss the point.  The employee's religious beliefs prevent
  him from affirming the value of gay people.  I call that homophobia.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Amar D. Sarwal [mailto:adsarwal at dcappeals.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:48 PM
  To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
  Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case


  I think you're missing the point.  The gentleman was not homophobic.
He
  just had no interest in affirming values with which he disagreed.  A
  related
  example:  I am not anti-Muslim, because I do not believe in Allah, nor
  do I
  wish to affirm his existence or value.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>
  To: <nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com>; "Law & Religion issues for Law
  Academics"
  <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
  Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:49 PM
  Subject: RE: FYI An Interesting Case


  To the extent, and only to the extent, that AT&T Broadband failed
  explicitly to connect its concerns about homophobia to the effective
  functioning of the workplace, the decision may be right.  Surely AT&T
is
  entitled to have a harmonious work environment for ALL of its
employees,
  both gays and homophobes.  And it should be given some latitude in
  achieving that objective.  The devil is in the details, I suspect.
I'll
  feel more confident about this case -- one way or the other -- after I
  get a chance to read it cover to cover.


  _______________________________________________
  To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw



------------------------------------------------------------------------
------


  _______________________________________________
  To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040411/ea2a03c
5/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:27:56 -0500
From: Paul Finkelman <paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu>
Subject: Re: FYI An Interesting Case
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
	<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <40798E2C.60400 at utulsa.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Rick:  

If you were confronted with hard scientific evidence that people who 
choose same sex partners are biologically/chemically inclined to such 
partners, and that it is no more a matter of "choice" then it is for a 
straight person to choose an opposite sex partner, would you still 
conclude that it is a "serious moral disorder?"  After all, if God made 
some people in such a way that they are only interested in same sex 
partners, are they truly making a "moral" choice in the matter, or are 
there merely following the biological/chemical make-up with which they 
were born.  Since their behavior would not affect anyone but other 
people who were so biologically and chemically made up, what would be 
the moral problem?

I am not a Christian, so forgive me if I am misunderstanding your faith,

but aren't there issues in Christian theology about people "casting 
stones" of moral condemnation at others, and, are you not supposed to 
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"  IF you were born 
with the came biological and chemical inclinations, would you want 
others pointing a finger at you, and saying, because of how you were 
born -- because of how God made you -- you are inherently immoral?

-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu


>
>It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you
>from affirming the value of Christians who believe
>that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call
>that Christophobia and religious bigotry.
>
>Rick Duncan
>
>
>
>
>=====
>Rick Duncan 
>Welpton Professor of Law 
>University of Nebraska College of Law 
>Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>
>  
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040411/502d66d
c/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Religionlaw mailing list
Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


End of Religionlaw Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9
*****************************************



More information about the Religionlaw mailing list