Lesser protection for religious advocacy

[Gene Summerlin]

Mark,

Respectfully, I disagree that my question is obviously overbroad.  I hear a
number of opinions that seem to indicate that religious speech may be banned
from schools.  My question, I think, is an appropriate one to determine the
reach to which such a ban would extend.

Gene Summerlin
Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C.
210 Windsor Place
330 South 10th St.
Lincoln, NE  68508
402.434.8040
402.434.8044 (FAX)
402.730.5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
gene at osolaw.com


-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:39 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy


Obviously overbroad.  Students may clearly ask, "who is the present
Pope?" The issue is whether students may proselytize.

MAG

>>> "Gene Summerlin" <gene at osolaw.com> 11/09/04 6:18 PM >>>
Professor Newsome,

Would it be constitutional, in your opinion, for a school to pass and
enforce a rule which stated, "Students may not discuss any matters
relating
to religion or theology while on school grounds, whether such
discussions
occur as part of a class discussion or as part of a private conversation
between students and/or faculty."

Gene Summerlin
Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C.
210 Windsor Place
330 South 10th St.
Lincoln, NE  68508
402.434.8040
402.434.8044 (FAX)
402.730.5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
gene at osolaw.com


-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:25 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy


Well that is the question.  Some people believe that schools should not
be religious-free zones, and one of their arguments in support of that
position -- apart from Protestant Empire imperatives -- is what I think
is a wholly exaggerated and unwarranted view of what the Free Speech
clause requires.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Graber [mailto:mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:03 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

but schools are religious-free zones.

MAG


_______________________________________________
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

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
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

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
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

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.