Well, recall that under Thomas v. Review Board, you don't need
an "official" belief of any well-established religious group -- a
person's idiosyncratic religious belief, if held sincerely, would
qualify. We thus can't simply say there's no substantial burden in such
cases, I think, though a strict scrutiny argument would always be
available.
As to the argument that strict scrutiny is satisfied because
otherwise the burden of supporting the child would fall on the
government, and that would violate the Establishment Clause: Can that
be consistent with Sherbert, where the government was in fact required
to support someone who for religious reasons refused to take a job that
would support herself? The Court faced an Establishment Clause argument
there, and rejected it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:21 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>
> > In re Didier, 2006 WL 2258571 (Wash. App.), raises an
> interesting
> > question (though it's possible that on the facts in this particular
> > case the objection was insincere): Should parents who are
> unemployed
> > or underemployed for religious reasons -- for instance,
> because they
> > have taken a vow of poverty and committed themselves to a
> monastic or
> > missionary life -- be exempted from a child support
> obligation that's
> > based on the income the parent would have had if he had
> been gainfully
> > employed?
> >
> > The Washington Court of Appeals says no, citing Smith;
> but it doesn't
> > discuss the possibility that this might be an "individualized
> > exemptions" case a la Sherbert, and it doesn't the Washington state
> > constitution, which has been interpreted as mandating
> strict scrutiny
> > in religious exemption cases. What do people think would be the
> > right answer under either of those doctrines? See also
> Hunt v. Hunt,
> > a mid-1990s Vermont case on the subject.
> >
> > Eugene
>
> With all due respect for those answering a calling to a
> religious vocation, I can't think of a single religion that
> relieves a person of the burden of financial responsibility
> to the child. The rights of that child supersede those of
> the progenetor/-trix. Monastary, missionary or being fired
> for not performing the duties of your job for "religious
> reasons" makes no difference. Otherwise the burden of
> support falls on the government, and *that* is a violation of EC.
>
> Jean Dudley
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@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@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.
