I used to think that religious groups using the First Amendment as a defense in
child sex abuse cases
was breathtaking. It is just a fact.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawyer2974 <lawyer2...@aol.com>
To: religionlaw <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 10:27 pm
Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
The sweeping generalities of these statements are breathtaking....
-Don Clark
Nationwide Special Counsel
United Church of Christ
In a message dated 6/13/2012 8:30:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
hamilto...@aol.com writes:
It opens the door to churches using RFRA as a defense to discovery,
liability, and penalties in chid sex abuse
cases. And that means less deterrence. Their lawyers embrace the First
Amendment and RFRAs to avoid responsiblity for child sex abuse all the time.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawyer2974 <lawyer2...@aol.com>
To: religionlaw <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
RFRA opens the door to child sex abuse or medical neglect? Really?!
--Don Clark
Nationwide Special Counsel
United Church of Christ
In a message dated 6/13/2012 3:55:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
hamilto...@aol.com writes:
The truth is that gay rights and child protection communities went all out
in North Dakota. Most Americans when they understand that a RFRA opens the
door to discrimination or child sex abuse or medical neglect quickly cool
on the extremism of a RFRA. The difference is public education
Marci
On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:39 PM, "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu>
wrote:
NARAL and Planned Parenthood spent a lot of money in a small market to
defeat this. They did not spend that kind of money in Alabama, so far as
I know. There have been shrill opponents in of state RFRAs in various
legislatures, but I am not aware of this kind of effort by NARAL or
Planned Parenthood.
Why now and not before? The polarization over sexual morality is the
larger cause, and the pending religious liberty claims specifically about
contraception and emergency contraception are the most immediate and
obvious cause. NARAL and Planned Parenthood now view religious liberty as
a bad thing, because it empowers the enemy and puts outside limits on
their agenda.
Shameless plug: I wrote about this in general terms, pre North Dakota, in
Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Religion, 88 U. Detroit Mercy L.
Rev. 407 (2011):
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr88&id=417&collection=usjournals&index=journals/udetmr
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
Behind NARAL's many inaccuracies lies a hint of what I believe may be the
sociological basis for answering Eugene's question. What follows is
purely speculative on my part, so just treat it as a hypothesis.
The initial RFRA push was, speaking broadly, in line with a sense by
evangelical Christians that their agendas, of various types, were
threatened by secularists ascendant in Washington and among other
political elites.That was then and this is now.
Apart from liberal Connecticut and Catholic-dominated Rhode Island, most
of the state RFRA enactments were in fairly conservative, heartland
states. Since a lot of other states have achieved the same effect by
judicial decision or existing constitutional provisions, the leftovers
have to be looked at as a discrete grouping. The cross-hatched states,
with the exception of New Hampshire, are all liberal, secularist places
where you would expect Smith to be popular among policy-makers and not
totally anathema to voters.
The remaining states without any RFRA-like policies but that haven't
firmly declared themselves as following Smith, with the exceptions of
California, Hawaii and Vermont, are also mostly conservative heartland
states, but they now have a different actuating fear, which I think is
the fear (rational or not) of Islamic demands for religious-cultural
exceptions from generally applicable laws. This fear directly offsets the
fears of evangelical Christians, and is probably shared by a good number
of them. NARAL's reference to domestic violence and child abuse look, in
that context, like code words for the domestic-relations aspects of
Sharia. Obviously, no RFRA statute immunizes domestic violence, but if
NARAL said in so many words what it thought the voters really wanted to
hear, its anti-Islamic thrust would be too obvious.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
