That is, of course, a deep problem. People can sincerely believe absolutely crazy things.
Sandy Sent from my iPhone On Jul 1, 2014, at 12:29 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>> wrote: Maybe this is a "constitutional fact," like NY Times actual malice. We need to be careful that a trier of fact does not conclude that a party isn't sincere just because the trier of fact thinks the belief is so obviously wrong that a reasonable person couldn't believe it. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad On Jul 1, 2014, at 8:30 AM, "Vance R. Koven" <vrko...@gmail.com<mailto:vrko...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that when the Court says *it* should not get involved in judging the sincerity of a religious belief, it is expressing the proper division of labor between a court and the finder of fact. It should be up to the jury (or the court wearing a fact-finder hat) to decide whether the belief is sincerely held or not. A trial court can easily enough instruct a jury to disregard whether they think the religious belief is kooky; but it's perfectly acceptable based on the credibility of the witnesses and direct and circumstantial evidence for a jury to ascertain whether the claimed religious belief is real or bogus. I have often suspected that doctrine in religious liberty cases has become quite twisted over time by courts' reluctance to let juries do what they're supposed to do. On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Arthur Spitzer <artspit...@gmail.com<mailto:artspit...@gmail.com>> wrote: I appreciate Steve's response, which I think demonstrates that he is precisely rejecting the legitimacy (or perhaps the religiosity) of the plaintiffs' beliefs. The plaintiffs say that their religious beliefs prohibit complicity with evil, and that signing a contract that makes available certain chemicals or devices to others amounts to complicity with evil, because of the use to which such chemicals or devices are most likely to be put (terminating what plaintiffs believe is a human life). If a court should not accept that assertion "without inquiry," then what inquiry is it supposed to make? Can a court evaluate and reject the religious belief that "complicity with evil is sinful"? Can a court evaluate and reject the religious belief that "terminating a human life is evil"? Can a court evaluate and reject the religious belief that "morning-after pills terminate a human life"? Can a court evaluate and reject the religious belief that "providing the means for a person to obtain a chemical or device whose principal purpose is to terminate a human life, and that is likely to be used for that purpose, counts as complicity in terminating a human life"? Is there some other inquiry the court should be making that I'm missing? Art Spitzer PS - My questions should not be taken to imply that I necessarily agree with the majority opinion (not that anyone cares), and they certainly do not represent the views of my employer. Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com<mailto:vrko...@world.std.com> _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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.
