And does it work?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > 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<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. > -- **Arthur B. Spitzer Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital 4301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 434 Washington, D.C. 20008 Tel. 202-457-0800 www.aclu-nca.org <a...@aclu-nca.org> artspit...@gmail.com *See Something - Say Something! If you see a violation of civil liberties, call the ACLU!* *Confidentiality Notice* * *This message is being sent by a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise legally protected from disclosure. If you are not a named addressee then you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of this message. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ 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.
