Agreed. But in order for there to be a "cost of immunity from tort law" there first has to be "immunity from tort law" and, particular to this discussion, immunity from tort law in child sex abuse cases. This discussion started with the assertion that RFRA's "open the door" to child sex abuse, "lessen deterrence" of it, and that RFRA arguments to this end were being made by "churches" and "their lawyers" "all the time" When that was questioned, the limitless assertions devolved to RFRA's "adding a layer of argument" during the course of litigation --Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ In a message dated 6/15/2012 12:40:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vol...@law.ucla.edu writes:
No, actually I think the quote was an unnecessarily pugnacious attempt to capture an important point. Some religious groups have apparently failed to reasonably investigate and monitor people whom they put in positions of influence over children, and some of those people have used that influence to molest children. It's at least plausible that holding religious groups liable for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision would provide an extra incentive for such monitoring and investigation in the future. Conversely, it's at least plausible that immunizing those groups from such employer liability would make it easy for them to endanger children -- not through deliberate attempts to harm children, of course, but through failure to protect the children. As I've mentioned, I'm skeptical that RFRAs will provide such immunity. But some states have indeed interpreted the First Amendment as providing such immunity – and even if that is nonetheless the correct result, for non-entanglement reasons or other reasons – it does seem to facilitate religious groups’ failure to take proper care to protect children. As I said, I think both sides of the discussion have at times put things more pugnaciously than is helpful. But the basic point of the cost of immunity from tort law is one that should be taken seriously. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of lawyer2...@aol.com > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:42 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > 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 <_hamilton02@aol.com_ (mailto:hamilto...@aol.com) > > Sender: _religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu) > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:08:48 > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<_religion...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) > > Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > <_religion...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) > > Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<_religion...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) > > Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to _religion...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) To subscribe, > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see _http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-_ (http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw) _> bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw_ (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 _religion...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) To subscribe, > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see _http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-_ (http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw) _> bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw_ (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.
