RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards'
Does not US v Ballard (US 1944) state the applicable rule-which is (unsurprisingly) the rule Doug proposed? Marc Stern From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:30 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Both these and the kosher laws address a species of fraud. But the fraud must be defined in a way that does not require a) government resolution of a religious question, or b) government designation of a preferred authority to resolve the religious question or act for the religion. The fact that is mispresented must be a secular fact, verifiable as true or false in this world. Quoting Eric Rassbach erassb...@becketfund.org: What if the law specified that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was purported to be a Mass intended to be celebrated in the Church? Would not then the offence simply be a species of fraud, i.e. the shop claimed to be selling the right to have a Mass offered in the Church but it was instead not to be offered in the Church? And would Irish law already ban such fraudulent activity, thereby rendering the law superfluous? None of this would affect Art's separate point about the unconstitutionality of the apparent presumption of guilt. I must say that there seems to be a bit of trend in Ireland right now with legislation that purports to protect religious freedom but actually harms it (cf. the recent blasphemy law, which surely violates the ECHR). Eric PS Máiréad -- as you can see, the members of this list will opine on this sort of thing for fun -- and for free -- with very little provocation! From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [layco...@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of US cases on the sale of food labeled as kosher but not kosher in accordance with government standards. All struck down. If there's a fraud problem, the government can require the label to say who certified the food as kosher. That is a question that can be answered in this world. But government can't decide for itself what counts as kosher, or designate a particular rabbi or association as the only approved certifying agent. The sale of Mass cards sounds like the same problem. The state could require disclosure of who authorized the Mass card. Or a disclosure of whether and how the priest who signed the Mass card will be informed of the sale and of who purchased the card. Those are verifiable facts. But the state can't decide that only a bishop or a head of an order can authorize the sale of Mass cards. That's a matter of internal church governance. Quoting Mairead Enright maireadenri...@gmail.com: Dear All, A colleague and I hoping to write a short article on s. 99 of the Irish Charities Act, 2009 ( http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf). The section regulates the sale of Catholic Mass cards. A Mass card is a greeting card given to someone to let them know that they, or a deceased loved-one, will be remembered and prayed for by a priest during a Catholic Mass. The person who purchases the card makes a donation to the church in exchange for the Mass and Mass cards are a significant source of revenue to Irish churches. Ordinarily, the card is signed by the priest who will say the Mass, at the time that the Mass is requested. However, in recent years, controversy has arisen regarding the sale of pre-signed Mass cards in ordinary shops ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0307/1224242428583.html). Section 99 of the new Charities Act provides that a person who sells a Mass card ?other than pursuant to arrangement with a recognised person? is guilty of a criminal offence. A ?recognised person? is defined as a bishop of the church, or the head of an order recognised by it. In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been committed. We were wondering whether one of the subscribers to this list might be willing - for fun - to venture an opinion on what the position of this section might be under U.S. constitutional law. Information on analogous U.S. cases would also be useful. A former Irish Attorney General has suggested that the legislation falls foul of the Irish constitution because (1) it is disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and (2) it represents a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and others
RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards'
Sorry, my earlier post was not clear - by Church in quotation marks I meant the defined term in the statute, not the word Church on the card. I agree completely with Doug and Marc. My point was only that if the Mass card said e.g. that a mass had been arranged to be said in a Roman Catholic church under the authority of Diarmuid Martin, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, then it would be fraudulent to sell a card where that act had in fact not been arranged. I think that would be a secular fact that a court could decide or not decide, and adjusting the proposed law in that way would render it constitutional under US law. But I think there is a far easier solution - if this really is a widespread problem, the RC Church in Ireland should just require all mass cards issued by it to bear the Catholic equivalent of a hechsher. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:04 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Does not US v Ballard (US 1944) state the applicable rule-which is (unsurprisingly) the rule Doug proposed? Marc Stern From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:30 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Both these and the kosher laws address a species of fraud. But the fraud must be defined in a way that does not require a) government resolution of a religious question, or b) government designation of a preferred authority to resolve the religious question or act for the religion. The fact that is mispresented must be a secular fact, verifiable as true or false in this world. Quoting Eric Rassbach erassb...@becketfund.org: What if the law specified that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was purported to be a Mass intended to be celebrated in the Church? Would not then the offence simply be a species of fraud, i.e. the shop claimed to be selling the right to have a Mass offered in the Church but it was instead not to be offered in the Church? And would Irish law already ban such fraudulent activity, thereby rendering the law superfluous? None of this would affect Art's separate point about the unconstitutionality of the apparent presumption of guilt. I must say that there seems to be a bit of trend in Ireland right now with legislation that purports to protect religious freedom but actually harms it (cf. the recent blasphemy law, which surely violates the ECHR). Eric PS Máiréad -- as you can see, the members of this list will opine on this sort of thing for fun -- and for free -- with very little provocation! From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [layco...@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of US cases on the sale of food labeled as kosher but not kosher in accordance with government standards. All struck down. If there's a fraud problem, the government can require the label to say who certified the food as kosher. That is a question that can be answered in this world. But government can't decide for itself what counts as kosher, or designate a particular rabbi or association as the only approved certifying agent. The sale of Mass cards sounds like the same problem. The state could require disclosure of who authorized the Mass card. Or a disclosure of whether and how the priest who signed the Mass card will be informed of the sale and of who purchased the card. Those are verifiable facts. But the state can't decide that only a bishop or a head of an order can authorize the sale of Mass cards. That's a matter of internal church governance. Quoting Mairead Enright maireadenri...@gmail.com: Dear All, A colleague and I hoping to write a short article on s. 99 of the Irish Charities Act, 2009 ( http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf). The section regulates the sale of Catholic Mass cards. A Mass card is a greeting card given to someone to let them know that they, or a deceased loved-one, will be remembered and prayed for by a priest during a Catholic Mass. The person who purchases the card makes a donation to the church in exchange for the Mass and Mass cards are a significant source of revenue to Irish churches. Ordinarily, the card is signed by the priest who will say the Mass, at the time that the Mass is requested. However, in recent years, controversy has arisen regarding the sale
Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
Francis Collins has been selected to be the head of NIH, where he will have substantial authority to allocate the nation’s scientific research funding. There are a few criticisms of Mr. Collins being made regarding his religion. For this list, I wanted to set aside a specific criticism. Specifically, let’s ignore criticisms based on Mr. Collins using his government position to promote religion. (For example, if Mr. Collins were to give a speech, as head of the Human Genome Project, claiming that DNA is evidence for God.) Instead, I wanted to get the list’s opinion on a different criticism. This criticism goes like this: (1) science is a product of another, deeper, more important feature – skeptical thinking; (2) Mr. Collins does not practice skeptical thinking; (3) in fact, Mr. Collins has made many statements undermining and contradicting skeptical thinking. Therefore, the criticism goes, Mr. Collins should not be the head of NIH because he undermines what science is all about. To get a flavor of the criticism, you can read this piecehttp://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/by Sam Harris. It is an elaboration of a NY Times editorial Mr. Harris recently authored. In response, biologist Kenneth Miller wrote in the NY Times that Mr. Harris has “deeply held prejudices against religion” and opposes Mr. Collins merely because “he is a Christian.” What does the list think? Should it be acceptable for an employer to discriminate against a job candidate on the grounds that the candidate believes, practices, and advocates for ideas that are antithetical to the values underlying the job? (Again, assuming that the candidate would not otherwise abuse the post and would generally do a fine administrative job.) Thanks, Anthony DeCinque ___ 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.
RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
As a legal matter, the claim that someone's religious views are disqualifying comes close to, if not actually constituting a prohibited religious test for public office especially as the NIH to which Collins was nominated is a federal institution subject to the tests clause directly.However there are cases in which the federal courts ahve upheld the discharge of political appointees who have made (hostile) religious statements about homosexuality. Marc Stern From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Decinque Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:48 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms I think that begs the question, in a sense. You say, If he has said anything about science that is antithetical to sound science, that would be a fair ground of criticism. Mr. Collins states that he believes in the virgin birth. Is that antithetical to sound science? I don't really want to get into a religious debate or comment on the validity of Mr. Collins's specific beleifs. I want to know when someone's advocacy of ideas that are antithetical to a profession can be used to disqualify that person (legally). You can change the hypothetical if you want. A faith-healer that is applying to be Surgeon General? A On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Douglas Laycock layco...@umich.edu wrote: The alleged ideas that are antithetical to the values underlying the job are simply his religion. Some consider his religion antithetical; he does not. It is not antithetical unless you accept certain other assumptions about the relation between religion and science -- assumptions that his critics adopt but that he rejects. If he has said anything about science that is antithetical to sound science, that would be a fair ground of criticism. But if he is sound when he talks about science, and the only evidence against him is the inferences people draw when he talks about religion, that is simply a religious disqualification. Quoting Anthony Decinque anthony.decin...@gmail.com: Francis Collins has been selected to be the head of NIH, where he will have substantial authority to allocate the nation?s scientific research funding. There are a few criticisms of Mr. Collins being made regarding his religion.. For this list, I wanted to set aside a specific criticism. Specifically, let?s ignore criticisms based on Mr. Collins using his government position to promote religion. (For example, if Mr. Collins were to give a speech, as head of the Human Genome Project, claiming that DNA is evidence for God.) Instead, I wanted to get the list?s opinion on a different criticism. This criticism goes like this: (1) science is a product of another, deeper, more important feature ? skeptical thinking; (2) Mr. Collins does not practice skeptical thinking; (3) in fact, Mr. Collins has made many statements undermining and contradicting skeptical thinking. Therefore, the criticism goes, Mr. Collins should not be the head of NIH because he undermines what science is all about. To get a flavor of the criticism, you can read this piecehttp://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_fran cis_collins2/by http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_c ollins2/%3Eby Sam Harris. It is an elaboration of a NY Times editorial Mr. Harris recently authored. In response, biologist Kenneth Miller wrote in the NY Times that Mr. Harris has ?deeply held prejudices against religion? and opposes Mr. Collins merely because ?he is a Christian.? What does the list think? Should it be acceptable for an employer to discriminate against a job candidate on the grounds that the candidate believes, practices, and advocates for ideas that are antithetical to the values underlying the job? (Again, assuming that the candidate would not otherwise abuse the post and would generally do a fine administrative job.) Thanks, Anthony DeCinque Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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
RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
Isn't one of the lines to draw whether the idea is scientifically testable or not? We can make scientific observations now about whether the world rests upon turtles, but we cannot observe the birth of Christ. Also query whether the natural order we've been discussing isn't overly Newtonian in its assumptions. Quantum mechanics allows us to calculate the non-zero probabilities, however infinitesimal, of events we might otherwise hold to be outside the standard rules of nature. Finally, would it have been right for someone in the late 19th century to take pretty negative views of someone who didn't buy into an aether theory? For the government to impose legal detriments on that person? From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:54 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms I do think this raises a troublesome question for those of us who recognize the importance of religious toleration, and yet have to evaluate people's qualities for various purposes. Say someone sincerely tells us that he thinks the world literally rests on the back of four elephants, which rest on the back of a turtle. When told that this is inconsistent with various facts about the world, elephants, and turtles, he says that this is an artifact of some special treatment by divine forces, which allows evasion of the normal rules of the universe. I take it that our first reaction would be to take a pretty negative view of the person. And that the person believes this for religious reasons wouldn't displace our doubts, I think. Even if we have reason to think that he's been a perfectly good geneticist, we might wonder whether he's the best person to promote to a rather different job that involves a broad range of choices about health science funding. Maybe we have some sort of ethical or constitutional obligation to set aside our worries, and draw a sharp line between beliefs that a person says are outside the natural order and those that he says relate to the natural order. But it seems to me that setting them aside at least runs against our first common-sense reactions, and might in fact not be sound. From there we can shift the hypothetical. What if the person believes the world is 6000 years old, and that people used to live nearly 1000 years, and that all the contrary evidence is miracles produced by God to test our faith? What if he doesn't take such a view, but believes that there have been several departures from the standard rules of nature in the past several thousand years, such as a virgin birth, a resurrection, and the like? My sense is that we would indeed draw lines between these examples. It is certainly significant to me that very many smart, thoughtful, and suitably scientific skeptical people are believing Christians, and that (I suspect) many fewer such smart, thoughtful, and skeptical people are Young-Earthers or people who literally accept certain Hindu creation myths. But it's not easy for me to figure out how to translate that sort of sensible distinction into a legal or constitutional rule, or even a broadly acceptable principle of political ethics. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Decinque Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:26 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms To be clear, I did not make that characterization. I was repeating Mr. Harris's argument. (My view would be different.) Again, I don't want to get into a religious argument (I don't think it's the point of this list) but Mr. Harris's argument was different: Even if the virgin birth is outside the natural order, the question Mr. Harris pushes on is how does Mr. Collins know that X event happened? In other words, since Mr. Collins is claiming that the natural order was suspended on a certain date at a certain place, he is the one who should have to provide evidence for that assertion. I think that this the failure of skepticism Mr. Harris is referring to I refer you to his piece for his arguments instead of my clumsy paraphrasing. All that aside, I wanted to assume that his views [are] antithetical to the values underlying science, not just characterize them that way. Assuming that they are, what result? Is it discrimination to say that someone's religious views undercut values that are needed in a job? I think the faith-healer hypothetical was more on target, but doesn't have the full flavor of the argument. A faith-healer, I suppose, never accepts conventional medicine. (Mr. Harris is arguing that) Mr. Collins is like a part-time faith healer. The doctor-who-prays response is helpful. What about a doctor who
RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
At 04:35 PM 8/6/09 -0700, you wrote: explains his belief on the grounds that there's a probability, however infinitesimal, that he'll turn into a werewolf, would you be satisfied about his qualities? Turn INTO a werewolf? http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
