Donald Trump tells his base that his immigration policy is anti-Muslim, and more than 90% of the people affected by it are Muslim. The Solicitor General tells the Court that the ban is not anti-Muslim because most Muslims in the world do not fall within it. The question is whether the President gets to have it both ways.
Search
Recent Posts
- Recovering aspects of oneself as a necessary condition of “finding oneself:” therapeutic progress in psychoanalysis
- Does Torture Work?
- Universal Basic Income (UBI): Theory and Praxis
- Young—school age—boy at home for summer vacation: “Momma, I’m bored.”
- The heart and mind—or soul—of psychoanalysis
- Preliminary musings on happiness
- American militarism: “brutal, hopeless adventurism”
- Great Awakenings, Spiritual Epistemology, and Empiricism
- The Barr Report, "Exoneration," and Trump the Felon
- Fantasy and Phantasy in Psychoanalysis: why the “ph” and not the familiar f-word?
StatCounter
« Hate Speech, Strossen, and Waldron: Matsuda to the Rescue | Main | Happy May Day! »
04/26/2018
The comments to this entry are closed.
About
- Religious Left Law brings together progressives from various faith traditions to discuss religion, law, politics, and/or culture.
Contributors
Links
- Ad Dominum
- AlterNet
- Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Balkinization
- Buddhist Peace Fellowship
- Center for Law and Religion Forum
- Walter H. Capps Center for the Study of Ethics, Religion, and Public Life
- Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy
- Christian Century
- Corey Robin
- Daily Kos
- Dorf on Law
- dotCommonweal
- Episcopal Cafe
- Feminist Law Professors
- Hindu American Foundation
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Immanent Frame
- Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights
- Karuna
- National Catholic Reporter
- Network of Engaged Buddhists
- Nihil Obstat
- Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
- Religion Clause
- Religion News Service
- Rewire.News
- Sojourners
- Talking Points Memo
Comments