From the list custodian

[Volokh, Eugene]

    Folks:  Let me mention again that list discussion tends to be most
helpful when it goes into concrete and detailed analysis, and not cliche
generalities.
 
    Recall that the thread began with a post discussing what protection
should be offered to speech that's critical of religion.  I'm pretty
sure that generalities about "government and religion should [be kept
separate]" or "all government is religious" are not that helpful here;
at that level of abstraction, those generalities tell us very little
about how particular speech restrictions should be treated.  
 
    For instance, even a purely secular government might choose to ban
certain statements about religious groups, alongside certain statements
about races, sexual orientations, and the like, because of a concern
that such statements might cause violent reactions by their targets,
might incite violence against their targets, or might simply cause
unjustified emotional distress to their targets.  I oppose such
restrictions, but I can't defend that opposition through generalities
such as separation of church and state.  Conversely, even a
religiously-based government might well decide not to ban speach
critical of various religions.
 
    More broadly, please note that the main purpose of this list is to
foster concrete discussion -- discussion useful to legal academics -- on
technical legal questions related to the law of government and religion.

 
    Eugene


________________________________

	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
	Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:38 PM
	To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
	
	
	ALL government is "religious." The only question is: Which
"religion" will a government be based on. 
	
	
	John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
	Recovering Republican
	
	"Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond,
and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain
the kingdom of Christ." -- John Calvin.


	-----Original Message-----
	From: CAROL MOORE <alclegal at bellsouth.net>
	To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
	Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:34 pm
	Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion
	
	
	And if this discussion doesn't make one want to dig up James
Madison and
	kiss his molding corpse for penning "Congress shall make no law
respecting
	the establishment of religion..." I don't know what would.  With
all due
	respect to those who profess belief, government and religion
should have
	separate bedrooms, if not separate houses, with no conjugal
visits.  This
	trend puts Nixon's domino theory in a new light.
	Carol Moore
	Gentle Reader  
	
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	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.
	
	
________________________________

	The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the
TMZ Toolbar Now
<http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014> ! 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080731/1d6d4a5a/attachment.htm