Obviously the sexual abuse of children is tragic and criminal. But I still am not getting how state RFRAs have protected it or encouraged it.
State RFRA cases are more boring than those opposed to Measure 3 might think. Plaintiffs generally lose their claims; they sometimes win, but they have not won anything remotely like what NARAL was fearing. (In that South Dakota piece-which is a bit dated now-I slog through the cases and provide citations, to the extent people are interested.) I counted somewhere around 25 Florida state RFRA cases, for example. Of those 25, plaintiffs won 1 on state RFRA grounds. That case involved a church that wanted to feed the homeless in a public park, despite a city rule saying that parks could not be used for social-service purposes. The church didn't win the right to use the park of its choosing, but the trial judge enjoined the city to let them use some park at some time. The case is Abbott v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So.2d 1213 (Fla. App.-4 Dist. 2001). Of course, plaintiffs sometimes ask for things they can't possibly get under state RFRAs-the right to use marijuana while driving, for example, keeps coming up. But that's a frivolous claim by a desperate criminal defendant, and it simply loses. State RFRAs have been asserted as defenses in some of the sex abuse cases. But usually such claims don't even get separate analysis, and they certainly don't win. If people like Marci will be more comfortable with a state RFRA with a child safety exception, I'd gladly do it. Not because I think it's necessary, but because I think it isn't: A state RFRA with a child safety exception will be treated exactly like a state RFRA without one. Children will be protected in any event. It's also important to keep in mind that the protection of state RFRAs can always be legislatively narrowed-and that has happened. Concerned with a pending suit by a Muslim to claim a drivers' license without having to take off her headscarf, Florida statutorily (and retroactively) removed such claims from the protection of Florida's RFRA. Judging by Florida's reaction to it, that apparently is the most threatening state RFRA claim that has ever been brought. I leave it to the listserv to evaluate how bad it really is, but it is certainly less scary than what Measure 3 opponents feared. Best, Chris From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 9:26 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; lawyer2...@aol.com Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND Religious institutions are creating the conditions for abuse in MANY circumstances. That is the reality, and the notion they should be less culpable than the perpetrators in the endangerment of children does them and children no favors. Religious institutions should not have one iota more latitude to endanger children than anyone else. And any RFRA or First Amendment decision that decreases deterrents to abuse or lets off those responsible for endangering children is a mistake in my view. Not one other person on this listserv has endorsed exempting child safety from a RFRA. Rather, I've heard that the rfras don't affect these cases. As someone involved in dozens, and at times hundreds of these cases at once, I can tell you the rfras and First Amendment do affect these cases. For the record, I oppose any religious liberty decision or rfra that affects the safety of children. For those who missed it, the Jehovahs Witnesses lost a child sex abuse case in California this week, and the jury served up 21 million in punitive damages. The evidence included a letter ordering keeping the abuse secret. Just one case out of thousands. Best to all-- 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 <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> hamilto...@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Marc Stern <ste...@ajc.org> To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; 'lawyer2...@aol.com' <lawyer2...@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 8:07 am Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND Allowing religious liberty defenses(which have so far been mostly unsuccessful) no more endangers children than does placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff in civil cases and the state(beyond a reasonable doubt) in criminal cases,rules against hearsay or requiring actual confrontation with accusers and so on. What is so troubling about Marci's message is not so much the bottom line result as the suggestion that interests of religious institutions-who after all are not themselves molesting children whatever their culpability for not acting more vigorously to protect children-are somehow systematically less worthy of protection than other social interests. While I accept Eugene's rebuke about rhetoric,and his observation about both equality and religious liberty being protected,it seems to me fair to observe that while there often ways to maximize both interests, there is an increasing tendency-readily visible in positions on conscientious objection by pharmacists to eschew such balancing tests in favor of sweeping assertions of the overarching importance of equality. The same trend is evident in the debates over religious exemptions in the context of same sex marriage. Marc From: <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> hamilto...@aol.com [ <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com?> mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 07:30 AM To: <mailto:lawyer2...@aol.com> lawyer2...@aol.com < <mailto:lawyer2...@aol.com> lawyer2...@aol.com>; <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu < <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND Please explain what is objectionable about that statement? Are you saying that religious groups do not endanger children? That is simply false. This is a law prof listserv where the discussion needs to focus on facts, doctrine, and policy. The mythology that religious groups always protect children or do not need the hand of the law to forestall harm is that -- mythology -- and not worthy of serious scholarly discussion. So do a lot of secular and individuals, but they are not capable of wrapping themselves in the mantle of claims for religious liberty or freedom. 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 <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> hamilto...@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: lawyer2974 < <mailto:lawyer2...@aol.com> lawyer2...@aol.com> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 6:45 am Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND "Giving religious groups more power to endanger children...." Wow.... To be charitable, I will chalk that one up to the lateness of the hour in which it was written..... -Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:08:48 To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND _______________________________________________ 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.
