LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian
Volokh, Eugene
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Thu Jul 31 19:13:58 PDT 2008
I don't insist that people speak in thousands of words -- but in my
experience, "pithy" one-liners rarely tell us much, and beyond that,
most law professors who specialize in the field have heard pretty much
all the pithy one-liners before. We've heard that church and state
should be separate, and we know how many different interpretations there
are of that. We've heard that all government is "religious" under
certain sufficiently broad definitions of "religion," but that doesn't
really tell us what government actions with regard to religion are
permissible.
Now I know that some people disagree, and find such generalities
more helpful than I do. And naturally, different list operators may
have different views on the subject. But, on this list, I hope you'd be
good enough to accommodate my preferences on this score.
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 4:56 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian
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
<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> !
_______________________________________________
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/20080731/8a000f94/attachment.htm
More information about the Religionlaw
mailing list