Rick,

I understand the first part -- on which much of the disagreement has centered.  
(One can make the distinctions some are advocating, but should one is the hard 
part (for some).  Drawing the line elsewhere makes more sense to others of us.)

But I'm not sure how the second part works.  If a court decides (or society 
decides) that giving insurance benefits mandated by the government is not 
"cooperation with evil," then doesn't the  substantial burden evaporate?  
Because isn't that what the erstwhile substantial burden is?  So isn't this 
properly to be decided on the predicate which the adherent has the burden of 
proving and not on the strict scrutiny which places an insurmountable burden in 
many instances on the government?

Steve

On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Rick Garnett wrote:

>  But, as others have pointed out, the compelled-insurance-coverage context is 
> (the district court's ruling notwithstanding) at least distinguishable and, 
> it seems to me, rises to the level of a "substantial burden!
> " -- even if, ultimately, one concludes that complying with the mandate does 
> not amount to culpable "cooperation with evil" and even if, ultimately, one 
> concludes that it is a justifiable and unavoidable (given the "compelling 
> interest", etc.) one.  

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                     vox:  202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice 
http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law           fax:  202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

“Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realize they were 
the big things.”
Robert Brault




_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to