You would be incorrect
On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:23 PM, lawyer2...@aol.com wrote: > Well, now we are getting somewhere.... > > Assuming the representation of the data is correct: > > A majority of states have rejected a constitutional argument that "opens the > door" to child sex abuse, and only three have embraced it. > > And North Dakota's proposed RFRA - which we can be "certain" "could" be more > problematic in child sex abuse cases (and was defeated at the polls mind you) > - was different than other state RFRA > > I suppose it may now be fair to venture that "churches" and "their lawyers" > are not making these arguments "all the time" in the majority of states that > have already rejected them, either in court or at the ballot box.....and that > the mere existence of these constitutional provisions and legislation do not > necessarily "mean less deterrence." > > --Don Clark > Nationwide Special Counsel > United Church of Christ > > > > In a message dated 6/13/2012 10:04:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > hamilto...@aol.com writes: > In 3 states, the courts continue to give religious groups First Amendment > protection from abuse claims. > Missouri, Wisconsin, and Utah. A majority of states have rejected such > arguments. A number have not > yet ruled. The three states to embrace such a theory have misread the First > Amendment, as I discuss > in (shameless plug) my article on The Licentiousness in Religious > Organizations... > > RFRA, as we all know, does not mirror the First Amendment, and the North > Dakota RFRA would have triggered > strict scrutiny even without a showing that the burden was "substantial" -- > so we can be certain that it could > be more problematic in child sex abuse and medical neglect cases. > > > 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: Arthur Spitzer <artspit...@gmail.com> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 10:40 pm > Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota > > "Their lawyers embrace the First Amendment ... to avoid responsiblity for > child sex abuse all the time." So should we repeal the First Amendment? Do > courts accept these arguments? > > Art Spitzer > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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.
