On Jul 31, 2008, at Thu, Jul 31, 2:57 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > Well, I do think that the relatively small amount at issue in > the case -- and the great deal of effort he must have devoted -- is > some > evidence of sincerity. Cf. the court's statement that "Similarly, > before this court, Mr. Sherrod stated in oral argument that only > one of > the issues he raised in his brief is of importance to him, i.e., that > the particular means chosen by the Department to enforce his > obligation > violates his religious beliefs. Mr. Sherrod declared that he believes > that parents have an obligation to support their children, that > appropriate legislation to enforce that duty of support in appropriate > cases is warranted, and that the only reason he has chosen to appeal a > judicial decision involving a relatively small sum of money is that > his > conscience requires it."
Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you, Eugene. Amount of money spent avoiding child support often exceeds the amount owed, for the stated reason that fathers vindictively withhold funds in order to punish the estranged ex-spouse. I think this is the case here. Spite is a powerful motivator, IMO. He just doesn't have the guts to own his spitefulness. This is further born out by the fact that he neglected his financial responsibility until he was told to pay child support. > > But in any case, if the legal question is sincerity, there would > have be to an evidentiary hearing, and if the trial judge is unwilling > to conclude that Mr. Sherrod is insincere, then the sincerity question > would be decided in Mr. Sherrod's favor, and our views and the > appellate > judges' views would be irrelevant. > > As to the rest of the argument below, I don't think it can work > under Thomas v. Employment Division. It is not for a court to decide > what's the best reading of Revelations, or whether the federal statute > indeed sufficiently bears the mark of the beast, or whether "mark > of the > beast" should be read literally -- just as it's not for a court to > decide whether someone who refuses to eat meat and milk is properly > interpreting "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk," or > whether someone who refuses to work on tank turrets is properly > interpreting his religion's commands of pacifism (that's the Thomas > case > itself). The question is whether Sherrod's religious belief is > sincere, > not whether it's a sensible interpretation of the Bible. Yes, I suppose that is a valid reason. In that case, sincerity shouldn't matter either, should it? The law is the law, regardless of the sequential number assigned to it. Moral obligation to uphold the law (in this case pay child support, and of course the moral obligation to pay child support as well) should over ride religious sincerity. In short, do the right and legal thing even if it is to an "agent/agency of Satan". > > Eugene > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley >> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:14 PM >> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> Subject: Re: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666 >> >> *blink* >> OK, this guy wins the "Most Creative Deadbeat Dad of the Year" award. >> >> Forgive me, Eugene, but there is a limit to my ability to >> suspend disbelief. I simply find myself able to assume that >> this guy is sincere. I might be able to swallow it if he >> were to send a check to the mother of his children for the >> amount that he is in arrears instead of handing it over to the court. >> >> OK, ok, I'll give it my best shot: He should not prevail >> because he is not ordered to submit to the dictates of the >> beast bearing the number 666, he is being ordered to comply >> with *Federal Statute 42 USC Sec. 666*. Simply having a >> sequential number does not make a law the Beast of Revelations 13. >> >> Somebody kindly relieve me of my ignorance; is there any >> reason why Human Services can't use an argument against >> Sherrod's claim based on further context from the quoted >> text? Specifically, can the attorney point out that since >> Human Services has not required Mr. Sherrod to receive the >> mark of the beast on his hand or forehead, they cannot >> possibly be the beast? CF: "He causes all, both small and >> great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on >> their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may >> buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the >> beast, or the number of his name." >> Revelation 13:16-17 >> >> Just askin'. >> 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.
