On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
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.
Good points, Eugene. So conscience is the key here, not necessarily
religious believe. How does one prove sincerity of belief--is it the
government's responsibility to disprove sincerity of belief, or is it
the plaintiff's responsibility to prove sincerity? I'm ignorant of
"strict scrutiny"; I'm understanding that Washington State provides
for individual cases in its constitution, and make exceptions?
I'm still not convinced that Sherbert applies here: Again, I'll
plead ignorance of the case--did the plaintiff have children to
support? Frankly, I know I'm working this backwards. I believe that
regardless of sincere religious conviction, a parent (regardless of
gender) should be not be relieved of the burden of financial
responsibility to their child. I'm thinking that should a parent
choose to take a vow of poverty, they should be required to perform
community service in lieu of child support. Give back to the
community that is supporting their child.
If that parent's right to strict scrutiny is being denied, by all
means, that needs to be rectified.
Jean Dudley.
And thank you for educating me so far.
_______________________________________________
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.
