LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian

[JOHN LOFTON]

There's no such thing as a "purely secular" government. And do you have software that automatically gripes about whatever I say? Every time I post something that's pithy, to the point, packed with wisdom, and?with no bloviating, you complain. And my most recent statement, and the one that begins this post, is designed precisely to "foster concrete discussion." I realize why many lawyers believe that something, in order to make sense, must be said in thousands of words, but I disagree. Am I allowed to disagree? Perhaps we might begin a "concrete discussion", Mr. List Custodian, with? you saying what you mean by "purely secular." Or we might?even discuss what constitutes a "concrete discussion." Thank you.


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: Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:50 pm
Subject: From the list custodian



??? 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! 




_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080731/25849ae9/attachment.htm