RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
This comment appears to imply that Mr. Koven believes that sexual abuse can be justified by religious accommodations. Is that actually Mr. Koven's viewpoint? From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:23 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Actually, Vance, recent research has documented a biochemical change in the brains of children who were sexually abused. Is that what is needed in order to justify putting the reins on parents who engage in abuse? Marci ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Actually, Vance, recent research has documented a biochemical change in the brains of children who were sexually abused. Is that what is needed in order to justify putting the reins on parents who engage in abuse? Marci ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
If interested, folks can learn more about the Followers of Christ and how the deaths of children in their community have pushed Oregon away from exemptions for religious medical neglect in God vs. the Gavel, pp. 35-36 and 300-01. Marci ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Just an FYI for those who have participated in this discussion. Although the Wisconsin case has garnered much attention, there was a recent manslaughter trial here in Oregon of 2 parents who used prayer rather than medical treatment for the 15 month-old who died of an enlarged visible cyst which essentially blocked her throat. Both parents were found not guilty of manslaughter, but the father was convicted of criminal mistreatment. Another trial is slated for the death of (ironically) the mother's 15 year old younger brother who also died of a medically treatable condition. The family are members of the Followers of Christ, a small, fundamentalist group that practices faith-healing. The cases have raised calls to repeal the remaining religious defenses for misdemeanor offenses. And, with respect to non-deadly abuse, the Oregon DHS removed children from a family who are members of a Ukrainian fundamentalist church who practice rather severe forms of physical discipline. The parents are arguing cultural/religious justifications for their punishment. Steve -- Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. Professor of Law and Director Center for Religion, Law and Democracy Willamette University 245 Winter Street, SE Salem, Oregon 97301 (503) 370-6732 Brownstein, Alan wrote: I find much of what Marci argues here persuasive, but get stuck on the question of what constitutes abuse. If you are my age (let's just say over 55 to generalize the point) and grew up in a working class or lower middle class neighborhood, the norm was that kids got smacked around a lot when their parents thought they misbehaved. I don't defend the practice and didn't follow my parents and their parental cohorts example in raising my own children. But I wouldn't characterize all these parents as child abusers either. I don't doubt that we know more about the consequences of child raising practices now than we did then and normative standards certainly change over time. But some of the older members on the list may experience some dissonance in having the environment we and our peers grew up in characterized as abusive. Alan Brownstein From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and difficulties with close relationships, among other problems. These are statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance industry to set risk. Do you dispute this set of relationships? Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is coming out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself anecdotally. Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are important and relevant. But if there are ways to create better conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to ignore those possibilities. With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. Marci -Original Message- From: Judith Baer To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 10:09 am Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance Koven wrote: Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers, rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her argument. Conceded, Vance. (I considered responding "yeah, yeah, yeah" but thought better of it.) But what if we change the topic from the causes of violent crime to the ways to stop it? Judy Baer ___ 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 s
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Yes indeed, and between drinking and alcoholism and liver damage (although in these cases I believe there are specific biochemical reactions that have been identified, which is not the case with abuse and later violence)--but notice that our sad experience attempting to criminalize liquor production and consumption (which, incidentally, was accompanied by a religious exception) has so far still warded off anything more than warnings and the occasional civil recovery in the case of tobacco. A lesson to be learned here, I think. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Sanford Levinson wrote: > Wouldn’t Cathleen’s argument also apply to the relationship between > smoking and cancer, given that one cannot predict with certainty that any > given smoker will in fact come down with lung cancer? > > > > sandy > > > -- > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Dr. Cathleen A. Mann > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:44 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > *Subject:* Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > > Yes, but what is being said is that there is a direct connection between > childhood abuse and later criminal behavior. There is also an assumption > that there is science to 'prove' this when there is not. I would very much > like to see the brief you mentioned in one of your earlier posts. If you > can send it to me or point me to it somewhere, I would like to read it.I > am open to being educated and proven wrong. > > Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D > 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 > Lakewood, CO 80232 > (303) 934-2828 > Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 > > This email is the intellectual property of the author. > Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining > the express permission of the author. > > > - Original Message - > From: hamilto...@aol.com > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:18:30 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > Cathleen-- No one on this list to my knowledge is claiming that there > is a sure way to make predictions regarding any particular individual. Your > persistence in making that argument is off-point. In any event, there are a > lot of MDs and PhDs out there at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., etc., that > would find your blanket attacks on the studies regarding the effects of > abuse very odd and unsupportable. > > > > Marci > > > -- > > > ___ 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. > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Wouldn't Cathleen's argument also apply to the relationship between smoking and cancer, given that one cannot predict with certainty that any given smoker will in fact come down with lung cancer? sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Cathleen A. Mann Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:44 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Yes, but what is being said is that there is a direct connection between childhood abuse and later criminal behavior. There is also an assumption that there is science to 'prove' this when there is not. I would very much like to see the brief you mentioned in one of your earlier posts. If you can send it to me or point me to it somewhere, I would like to read it.I am open to being educated and proven wrong. Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 Lakewood, CO 80232 (303) 934-2828 Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 This email is the intellectual property of the author. Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining the express permission of the author. - Original Message - From: hamilto...@aol.com To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:18:30 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Cathleen-- No one on this list to my knowledge is claiming that there is a sure way to make predictions regarding any particular individual. Your persistence in making that argument is off-point. In any event, there are a lot of MDs and PhDs out there at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., etc., that would find your blanket attacks on the studies regarding the effects of abuse very odd and unsupportable. Marci ___ 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Yes, but what is being said is that there is a direct connection between childhood abuse and later criminal behavior. There is also an assumption that there is science to 'prove' this when there is not. I would very much like to see the brief you mentioned in one of your earlier posts. If you can send it to me or point me to it somewhere, I would like to read it. I am open to being educated and proven wrong. Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 Lakewood, CO 80232 (303) 934-2828 Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 This email is the intellectual property of the author. Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining the express permission of the author. - Original Message - From: hamilto...@aol.com To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:18:30 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Cathleen-- No one on this list to my knowledge is claiming that there is a sure way to make predictions regarding any particular individual. Your persistence in making that argument is off-point. In any event, there are a lot of MDs and PhDs out there at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., etc., that would find your blanket attacks on the studies regarding the effects of abuse very odd and unsupportable. Marci ___ 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
In response to Eugene's question re: women's rights linkage to children's rights, I defer to Paul Finkelman on the history. But from my own personal experience, I have learned that women are significantly more likely to put children's issues at the top of a legislative agenda than are men. Marci **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Cathleen-- No one on this list to my knowledge is claiming that there is a sure way to make predictions regarding any particular individual. Your persistence in making that argument is off-point. In any event, there are a lot of MDs and PhDs out there at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., etc., that would find your blanket attacks on the studies regarding the effects of abuse very odd and unsupportable. Marci **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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.
Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I'm not sure why you would not want to interview someone accused of or convicted of abuse or criminal behavior. Interviewing is important, but it can also be misleading. The "science" you describe is not science at all, but anecdotal evidence at best with a smidgen of ad hoc and confirmatory bias thrown in. Apparent correlation between two or more variables is not causation. This is psychology 101. There are so many confounding variables that alll we can say is that there is a probability that those abused in childhood may go on to abuse others. They also may not. Again...there is no way to predict who will abuse and who will not. For example, we know have some good ideas and hypotheses as to why the Columbine school shooters committed their crimes, but no one would have been able to predict it. If someone in psychology or psychiatry can predict future behavior, then these folks should be sitting at home waiting for their call from Stockholm, because this is Nobel prize worthy "prediction:. Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 Lakewood, CO 80232 (303) 934-2828 Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 This email is the intellectual property of the author. Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining the express permission of the author. - Original Message - From: hamilto...@aol.com To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 8:33:34 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment The science is not "squishy" on the likelihood of alcohol and substance abuse and suicide following child abuse. You don't have to interview someone to determine addiction and self-destructive behavior. The correlation is depressingly high given the high number of those abused. The notion that not everyone abused is led to such behavior simply does not disprove the data of tendency. Marci ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Thanks to Scott Smith for his reference to one of the many important studies on likelihood of criminal behavior arising out of abuse. The problem with the argument that you cannot predict that any one particular abused individual will engage in criminal or socially costly behavior is that public policy is not made for individuals. It is made for the society as a whole. We cannot predict whether any one particular woman will get breast cancer, but the insurance industry and government medical coverage use likelihood statistics among the population of women all the time to price coverage and oversee appropriate treatments. Policymakers need to do the same for the costs of abuse. For those interested in more studies on the effects of abuse on children, please email me off-list and I will be happy to send along the brief I filed in the New Jersey Supreme Court this year in the RL v Voytac case, which has a number of such cites. In addition, the National Center for Victims of Crime is a great site for data in this arena. In any event, I think it is very important that law professors have these discussions regarding abuse and its effects because they are the underpinnings for the state interests that stand against exemptions for religious parents from child medical neglect, neglect, and abuse statutes. Without setting the state interest on a factual basis, the discussion about appropriate exemptions is too abstract to protect the vulnerable. I know that many of you are called upon by either religious groups and/or legislators regarding such issues and to the extent that we can inject more facts into the discourse, it is better for everyone. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I have nothing to add to Dr. Mann's remarks, with which I concur. However, to close the loop, so to speak, I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph of Marci's post, and have effectively said so all along. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Dr. Cathleen A. Mann < cathleenm...@comcast.net> wrote: > All due respect, but just because "most" testify to something does not make > it true or reflective of the research into this area. If you carefully read > "studies" by psychiatrists, they mostly contain interview data from the > offender or inmate who alleges childhood abuse. This is hardly a sterling > process. > > > > Also, psychiatrists are not psychologists. Psychiatrists testify about > their understanding of psychiatry, but they have no research evidence that > abuse in childhood actually has causality in terms of prediction of later > dysfunction. There are plenty of people who were abused who never abused > anyone else. The science is squishy on this issue. Now, psychologists may > testify that psychological research can describe behavior in this area in > the reverse, i.e., there is an overabundance of data suggesting that people > who are now abusers were abused in their childhood. But, that does not mean > we can use this data to predict the future. > > > > The Ted Bundy example is just one of many and should not be discounted. > Many very bad people came from intact homes. Many bad people had good > parents. So this whole childhood abuse thing is very weak, very weak. > > > > The point is that there is no predictive power between these two variables. > > Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D > 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 > Lakewood, CO 80232 > (303) 934-2828 > Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 > > This email is the intellectual property of the author. > Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining > the express permission of the author. > > > > - Original Message - > From: hamilto...@aol.com > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:34:48 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have > shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have > severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of > suicide, and difficulties with close relationships, among other problems. > These are statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, > e.g., the insurance industry to set risk. Do you dispute this set of > relationships? > > Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted > Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is coming out > of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with > individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself > anecdotally. > > Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both > are important and relevant. But if there are ways to create better > conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for > society to ignore those possibilities. > > With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, > right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a > treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. And > the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child > to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. > > Marci > > > > ___ > 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. > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
The science is not "squishy" on the likelihood of alcohol and substance abuse and suicide following child abuse. You don't have to interview someone to determine addiction and self-destructive behavior. The correlation is depressingly high given the high number of those abused. The notion that not everyone abused is led to such behavior simply does not disprove the data of tendency. Marci ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Hi Ms. Hamilton, I'm sure you probably have much better facts, but this sentence: "We find that maltreatment approximately doubles the probability of engaging in many types of crime." is from the second paragraph of this paper: Does Child Abuse Cause Crime?, <http://aysps.gsu.edu/publications/2006/downloads/CurrieTekin_ChildAbuse.pdf > (From the first paragraph: "This paper focuses on measuring the effects of child maltreatment on crime using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health).") Kind regards, Scott Smith On 08/04/2009 11:35 PM, "Dr. Cathleen A. Mann" wrote: > > > All due respect, but just because "most" testify to something does not make it > true or reflective of the research into this area. If you carefully read > "studies" by psychiatrists, they mostly contain interview data from the > offender or inmate who alleges childhood abuse. This is hardly a sterling > process. > > > > Also, psychiatrists are not psychologists. Psychiatrists testify about their > understanding of psychiatry, but they have no research evidence that abuse in > childhood actually has causality in terms of prediction of later dysfunction. > There are plenty of people who were abused who never abused anyone else. The > science is squishy on this issue. Now, psychologists may testify that > psychological research can describe behavior in this area in the reverse, > i.e., there is an overabundance of data suggesting that people who are now > abusers were abused in their childhood. But, that does not mean we can use > this data to predict the future. > > > > The Ted Bundy example is just one of many and should not be discounted. Many > very bad people came from intact homes. Many bad people had good parents. So > this whole childhood abuse thing is very weak, very weak. > > > > The point is that there is no predictive power between these two variables. > > Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D > 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 > Lakewood, CO 80232 > (303) 934-2828 > Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 > > This email is the intellectual property of the author. > Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining > the express permission of the author. > > > - Original Message - > From: hamilto...@aol.com > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:34:48 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown > that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe > problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and > difficulties with close relationships, among other problems. These are > statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the > insurance industry to set risk. Do you dispute this set of relationships? > > Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted > Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is coming out > of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with > individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself > anecdotally. > > Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are > important and relevant. But if there are ways to create better conditions so > that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to > ignore those possibilities. > > With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, > right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a treatable > ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. And the way to > prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child to die or be > disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. > > Marci > > > > ___ > 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
All due respect, but just because "most" testify to something does not make it true or reflective of the research into this area. If you carefully read "studies" by psychiatrists, they mostly contain interview data from the offender or inmate who alleges childhood abuse. This is hardly a sterling process. Also, psychiatrists are not psychologists. Psychiatrists testify about their understanding of psychiatry, but they have no research evidence that abuse in childhood actually has causality in terms of prediction of later dysfunction. There are plenty of people who were abused who never abused anyone else. The science is squishy on this issue. Now, psychologists may testify that psychological research can describe behavior in this area in the reverse, i.e., there is an overabundance of data suggesting that people who are now abusers were abused in their childhood. But, that does not mean we can use this data to predict the future. The Ted Bundy example is just one of many and should not be discounted. Many very bad people came from intact homes. Many bad people had good parents. So this whole childhood abuse thing is very weak, very weak. The point is that there is no predictive power between these two variables. Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 Lakewood, CO 80232 (303) 934-2828 Secure Fax: (303) 934-2892 This email is the intellectual property of the author. Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining the express permission of the author. - Original Message - From: hamilto...@aol.com To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:34:48 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and difficulties with close relationships, among other problems. These are statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance industry to set risk. Do you dispute this set of relationships? Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is coming out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself anecdotally. Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are important and relevant. But if there are ways to create better conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to ignore those possibilities. With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. Marci ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Since we are being "personal" here I can only comment that the kid in my working class neighborhood who was regularly hit by his father with "the strap" -- ie: his dad's belt -- ending up killing 4 or 5 people in two DWI's after high school and was given the choice of the Marines (and Vietnam) or jail. He chose the Marines. I cannot prove his wreckless behavior was caused by his brutal father. But I would not doubt it. The father was abusive and bully. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Tue, 8/4/09, Brownstein, Alan wrote: From: Brownstein, Alan Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 6:43 PM I find much of what Marci argues here persuasive, but get stuck on the question of what constitutes abuse. If you are my age (let’s just say over 55 to generalize the point) and grew up in a working class or lower middle class neighborhood, the norm was that kids got smacked around a lot when their parents thought they misbehaved. I don’t defend the practice and didn’t follow my parents and their parental cohorts example in raising my own children. But I wouldn’t characterize all these parents as child abusers either. I don’t doubt that we know more about the consequences of child raising practices now than we did then and normative standards certainly change over time. But some of the older members on the list may experience some dissonance in having the environment we and our peers grew up in characterized as abusive. Alan Brownstein From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and difficulties with close relationships, among other problems. These are statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance industry to set risk. Do you dispute this set of relationships? Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is coming out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself anecdotally. Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are important and relevant. But if there are ways to create better conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to ignore those possibilities. With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. Marci -Original Message- From: Judith Baer To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 10:09 am Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance Koven wrote: Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers, rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her argument. Conceded, Vance. (I considered responding "yeah, yeah, yeah" but thought better of it.) But what if we change the topic from the causes of violent crime to the ways to stop it? Judy Baer ___To post, send message to religion...@lists.ucla.eduto 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. -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists
RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Hmm -- is there any evidence supporting the proposition that recognizing women's rights has indeed caused greater recognition of children's rights? I would think that many people would see the two as very different matters; we've had over 150 years in many states of Married Women's Property Acts, for instance, but I take it that most people are quite comfortable with parents' having considerable control over their children's property (though not unlimited control in certain circumstances, to be sure). Now perhaps the theory below is indeed correct -- I guess I'm just skeptical unless there's some clearer evidence. Eugene > -Original Message- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:00 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > I share the same experiences as Alan mentions. Part of what we are dealing > with > here are the consequences of the women's rights movement. As women's status > has moved from property to persons, so has children's though more slowly. > The > status assumptions color judgments about proper parenting - as well as proper > treatment of spouses. > Marci > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: "Brownstein, Alan" > > Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:43:48 > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > ___ > 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I share the same experiences as Alan mentions. Part of what we are dealing with here are the consequences of the women's rights movement. As women's status has moved from property to persons, so has children's though more slowly. The status assumptions color judgments about proper parenting - as well as proper treatment of spouses. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: "Brownstein, Alan" Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:43:48 To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment ___ 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.
RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I find much of what Marci argues here persuasive, but get stuck on the question of what constitutes abuse. If you are my age (let's just say over 55 to generalize the point) and grew up in a working class or lower middle class neighborhood, the norm was that kids got smacked around a lot when their parents thought they misbehaved. I don't defend the practice and didn't follow my parents and their parental cohorts example in raising my own children. But I wouldn't characterize all these parents as child abusers either. I don't doubt that we know more about the consequences of child raising practices now than we did then and normative standards certainly change over time. But some of the older members on the list may experience some dissonance in having the environment we and our peers grew up in characterized as abusive. Alan Brownstein From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and difficulties with close relationships, among other problems. These are statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance industry to set risk. Do you dispute this set of relationships? Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is coming out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself anecdotally. Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are important and relevant. But if there are ways to create better conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to ignore those possibilities. With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be prevented. And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. Marci -Original Message- From: Judith Baer To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 10:09 am Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance Koven wrote: Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers, rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her argument. Conceded, Vance. (I considered responding "yeah, yeah, yeah" but thought better of it.) But what if we change the topic from the causes of violent crime to the ways to stop it? Judy Baer ___ 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Well, not to minimize child abuse, but speaking from experience, my parents believed in spanking and I seem to have turned out okay. Actually, I do not recall any specific times of having been spanked; however, I DO remember having my mouth washed out with soap for having bitten my sister. Which seemed to me at the time (and still does) to be a much worse punishment. :-) Lisa Volokh, Eugene wrote: It also seems noteworthy to me that one of the arguments on the list for having any bruise-inflicting corporal punishment of children be criminal was equally applicable to minor spanking as well. The argument was, “I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not consider it a battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what used to be common law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point of bruising them. Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard to imagine how a claim of religious belief would justify it. I suppose adults could consent to such interpersonal behavior. but since children cannot legally consent to such harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify such abuse.” But I take it that everyone on the list would consider it a battery if someone spanked them even without bruising them, no? So when the logic of the arguments suggests the illegality of /all/ corporal punishment, it seems reasonable for people who support some corporal punishment to think that the other side’s position would go beyond just prohibiting bruising. -- Lisa A. Runquist Runquist & Associates Attorneys at Law 17554 Community Street Northridge, CA 91325 (818)609-7761 (818)609-7794 (fax) l...@runquist.com http://www.runquist.com IRS Circular 230 Notice To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax penalties. This message and any attachments may be protected by the attorney/client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read, copy or distribute it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. NOTE: Emails are not a secure method of communication. If you do not wish to obtain future communications from me via email, please advise me immediately. ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance--? Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others have shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children to have severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse, likelihood of suicide, and difficulties with close relationships, among other problems.? These are statistical studies that are the type routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance industry to set risk.??Do you dispute this set of relationships? Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the Ted Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency.? Now, all of this is coming out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular contact with individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this for yourself anecdotally.? Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course both are important and relevant.? But if there are ways to create better conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is irrational for society to ignore those possibilities.? With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed, right???Surely there is?no question that the death of a child from a treatable ailment is a serious?loss to society and should be prevented.? And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents from permitting a child to die or be disabled regardless of the parents' beliefs. Marci -Original Message- From: Judith Baer To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 10:09 am Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance Koven wrote: ? Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers, rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her argument. ? Conceded, Vance. (I?considered responding "yeah, yeah, yeah" but thought better?of it.)?But what if we change the topic from the causes of violent crime to the ways to stop it? Judy Baer ___ 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
To some degree the argument is circular. As between unconsenting adults, it is certainly black-letter common law that any touching is a battery and any credible threat of it is an assault. However, under various guises, the law has also traditionally recognized some kind of privilege as between parent and child. The discussion here can be read to be about the scope of the privilege. Since most child-abuse cases will arise under state law, a common-law privilege might be relevant, and inasmuch as any claim for religious exemption would fall either under pre-Smith state religious freedom doctrine or a state RFRA, in states where these apply, centrality (responding here in part to Mark Scarberry) ought not to be an issue. As a fan of common-law approaches to religious freedom issues, you might find this line of reasoning attractive. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > It also seems noteworthy to me that one of the arguments on > the list for having any bruise-inflicting corporal punishment of children be > criminal was equally applicable to minor spanking as well. The argument > was, “I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not > consider it a battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what > used to be common law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point > of bruising them. Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard > to imagine how a claim of religious belief would justify it. I suppose > adults could consent to such interpersonal behavior. but since children > cannot legally consent to such harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify > such abuse.” But I take it that everyone on the list would consider it a > battery if someone spanked them even without bruising them, no? > > > > So when the logic of the arguments suggests the illegality of > *all* corporal punishment, it seems reasonable for people who support some > corporal punishment to think that the other side’s position would go beyond > just prohibiting bruising. > > > > Eugene > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Vance R. Koven > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:01 AM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > > Actually, it didn't. It began with an inquiry into what level of insult (in > the broadest sense) to a child should be prosecuted as child abuse > regardless of the justification based on religious or even secular concepts > of parental discipline. I was attempting to draw a distinction between > serious harm and minor bruises--my example was a black-and-blue bum, which > of course would normally heal quickly. That *is* spanking. My suggestion is > that the harm to the child be proven as a matter of fact, rather than > presumed as a matter of law, in order to avoid defects in the legal adoption > of theories that should not be graven in stone. > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Paul Finkelman > wrote: > > Art: > > This discussion began with a defense of "bruising" children. That is hardly > spanking. I think if you look at those beyond death row -- simply violent > criminals - you will find abuse in almost every circumstance. > > > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, NY 12208 > > 518-445-3386 (p) > 518-445-3363 (f) > > pf...@albanylaw.edu > > www.paulfinkelman.com > > --- On *Mon, 8/3/09, artspit...@aol.com * wrote: > > > From: artspit...@aol.com > > > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 9:08 PM > > > > Because a few seriously abused children become murderers, society needs to > prohibit spanking? > > > In a message dated 8/3/09 9:05:21 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: > > > > Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection > between the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the > individuals who are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure > out who acted more heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the > death row inmate himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should > be an adequate defense to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to > make every effort to stem harm to children. > > > > > > > ** > A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! ( > http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/
RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
It also seems noteworthy to me that one of the arguments on the list for having any bruise-inflicting corporal punishment of children be criminal was equally applicable to minor spanking as well. The argument was, "I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not consider it a battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what used to be common law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point of bruising them. Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard to imagine how a claim of religious belief would justify it. I suppose adults could consent to such interpersonal behavior. but since children cannot legally consent to such harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify such abuse." But I take it that everyone on the list would consider it a battery if someone spanked them even without bruising them, no? So when the logic of the arguments suggests the illegality of all corporal punishment, it seems reasonable for people who support some corporal punishment to think that the other side's position would go beyond just prohibiting bruising. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:01 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Actually, it didn't. It began with an inquiry into what level of insult (in the broadest sense) to a child should be prosecuted as child abuse regardless of the justification based on religious or even secular concepts of parental discipline. I was attempting to draw a distinction between serious harm and minor bruises--my example was a black-and-blue bum, which of course would normally heal quickly. That *is* spanking. My suggestion is that the harm to the child be proven as a matter of fact, rather than presumed as a matter of law, in order to avoid defects in the legal adoption of theories that should not be graven in stone. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Paul Finkelman mailto:paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>> wrote: Art: This discussion began with a defense of "bruising" children. That is hardly spanking. I think if you look at those beyond death row -- simply violent criminals - you will find abuse in almost every circumstance. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:pf...@albanylaw.edu> www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, artspit...@aol.com<mailto:artspit...@aol.com> mailto:artspit...@aol.com>> wrote: From: artspit...@aol.com<mailto:artspit...@aol.com> mailto:artspit...@aol.com>> Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 9:08 PM Because a few seriously abused children become murderers, society needs to prohibit spanking? In a message dated 8/3/09 9:05:21 PM, hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> writes: Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection between the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the individuals who are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure out who acted more heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the death row inmate himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should be an adequate defense to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to make every effort to stem harm to children. ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<http://mc/compose?to=religion...@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.
RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Earlier posts raised the issue of male circumcision. I've thought for a long time that one fruitful approach to giving substantive content to "free exercise" of religion would be to look at practices that were considered at the Founding (or maybe in 1868) to be core religious practices (perhaps with a focus on worship and ceremony) and that were at that time tolerated. Of course then the protection of such practices would have to be granted in some way by analogy to new practices of new religions (or of religions new to the US because not present in the US at the relevant historical time or not widely known of at the relevant historical time), so as not to discriminate against new religions. Some kind of mid-level scrutiny then could be applied. Such an approach would protect use of sacramental wine (a mildly intoxicating substance) as it was used in Christian and Jewish ceremonies, and it would protect use of other mildly intoxicating substances as they might be similarly used by new religions. I suppose the use of hoasca tea by the UDV and the use of small amounts of peyote in native American religion probably would be protected by such an approach. Beating of children for religious reasons in such a manner as to cause serious psychological harm or bruising would either not be seen as a core religious practice or perhaps as not tolerated at the relevant time (though I'm not sanguine about how historical research would come out on that issue) or would fail under intermediate scrutiny because of the governmental interest in protecting children. Male circumcision would seem to be protected by such an approach. Yes, it can cause difficulties for boys, but it may also have some benefits (including some protection against infection and in most cases the psychological benefit of the boy's penis looking the same as his father's), and its harms are relatively small as compared to the core place it holds in Judaism. If one wishes to take a broader historical approach, I think Americans, either in 1791 or in 1868, would have seen a ban on circumcision as an attempt to banish Jews from America or to destroy Judaism. But I have not done historical research on the point, and others may know more about the attitudes of Americans towards circumcision at those times. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Douglas Laycock Sent: Tue 8/4/2009 5:48 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Now we're getting somewhere. Terms like corporal punishment are no more helpful than spanking. We simply must make distinctions of degree. And the rhetoric of the movement against corporal punishment speaks in apparent absolutes and makes no distinctions of degree. I suspect this is much of what Vance has been reacting to. Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: > Art- many studies now document the extreme disabilities visited upon > abused children. The cost to society is very high. Is a pat on the > tush abuse? No. Is a whipping with a tree branch? Probably > The term spanking is not terribly helpful > > Marci > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: artspit...@aol.com > > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:08:19 > To: > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > ___ > 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. > > > 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-b
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
A careful read of the lifestory of Ted Bundy indicates that he was not the victim of abuse, but of extreme indulgence. Psychology does not and cannot attach causation of extreme abuse to later behavior. Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D 1880 S. Pierce St. Unit 7 Lakewood, CO 80232 This email is the intellectual property of the author. Please do not forward in whole or in part without first obtaining the express permission of the author. - Original Message - From: "Judith Baer" To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:09:56 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance Koven wrote: Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers, rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her argument. ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance Koven wrote: Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers, rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her argument. Conceded, Vance. (I considered responding "yeah, yeah, yeah" but thought better of it.) But what if we change the topic from the causes of violent crime to the ways to stop it? Judy Baer ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Actually, it didn't. It began with an inquiry into what level of insult (in the broadest sense) to a child should be prosecuted as child abuse regardless of the justification based on religious or even secular concepts of parental discipline. I was attempting to draw a distinction between serious harm and minor bruises--my example was a black-and-blue bum, which of course would normally heal quickly. That *is* spanking. My suggestion is that the harm to the child be proven as a matter of fact, rather than presumed as a matter of law, in order to avoid defects in the legal adoption of theories that should not be graven in stone. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: > Art: > > This discussion began with a defense of "bruising" children. That is hardly > spanking. I think if you look at those beyond death row -- simply violent > criminals - you will find abuse in almost every circumstance. > > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, NY 12208 > > 518-445-3386 (p) > 518-445-3363 (f) > > pf...@albanylaw.edu > > www.paulfinkelman.com > > --- On *Mon, 8/3/09, artspit...@aol.com * wrote: > > > From: artspit...@aol.com > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 9:08 PM > > > Because a few seriously abused children become murderers, society needs to > prohibit spanking? > > > In a message dated 8/3/09 9:05:21 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: > > > Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection > between the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the > individuals who are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure > out who acted more heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the > death row inmate himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should > be an adequate defense to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to > make every effort to stem harm to children. > > > > > > > ** > A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! ( > http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115 > ) > > -Inline Attachment Follows- > > ___ > To post, send message to > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<http://mc/compose?to=religion...@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. > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I'm afraid that Marci's response is a prime example of what's wrong with this type of argumentation based on correlation-as-causation. Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers, rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is omitting from her argument. We may, for instance, discover that there is a genetic link in all this, either to a predilection for violence or to a susceptibility to violence triggered by conduct that would not trigger it in others. And as I said earlier, while it may be necessary to invoke what we think we know now in order to support certain kinds of policies (refusing to permit teaching of creationism in public schools, for example), it's not so wise to do so when the consequences of our inevitable errors will do irremediable and undeniable specific harm (imprisonment). One good way to guard against this is, as I also said before, by stacking the evidentiary deck in favor of those who behave in accordance with traditional approaches, where the damage to the purported victim is less than obvious. So no, I would not justify honor killings or female genital mutilation based on religion or tradition. I also disapprove of rather more common practices, such as mothers' psychologically manipulating daughters not to marry so that the mother will be cared for later in life (there have been more than a handful of murders and elder-abuse cases arising from that scenario, too), but we need to draw the line of legally cognizable injury well away from that (the manipulation, that is, not the resulting murder) to avoid a chillingly unfree society. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:00 PM, wrote: > Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection > between the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the > individuals who are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure > out who acted more heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the > death row inmate himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should > be an adequate defense to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to > make every effort to stem harm to children. > > Marci > > > -Original Message- > From: Paul Finkelman > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 6:42 pm > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > Vance's response smacks of "red baiting." Because Communists use > science he does not trust it? > > The KKK uses he Cross on its Robes? So I suppose we should all be careful > of anyone professing to be a Christian? The Oklahoma City Bombers were > veterans and "patriots" so beware of anyone who argued for patriotism? > > I wonder what Vance means by "so-called science" -- Biology (which surely > deals with human behavior) does not apply in his world? Medical science > (another of those "human sciences) is a "so-called" science -- so that if a > physician tes tifies that a the bruises on a child were caused by a use of > force by a much stronger human being (the parent beat the child) he will > reject this as "so-called" science. > > As for anecdotal evidence, we have very good evidence (even anecdotal > evidence that apparently works better for Vance than other kinds) that most > people who end up doing serious harm to others were abused, beating, > "bruised," etc. by their parents. > > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, NY 12208 > > 518-445-3386 (p) > 518-445-3363 (f) > > pf...@albanylaw.edu > > www.paulfinkelman.com > > --- On *Mon, 8/3/09, Vance R. Koven * wrote: > > > From: Vance R. Koven > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 4:38 PM > > To me, "scientific" principles are to be avoided in anything to do with the > law. Phrenology and eugenics (sorry, Eugene) were once state-of-the-art > science. Communism was considered "scientific." Having been trained as20a > social scientist, I can tell you that those two words don't even belong in > the same sentence, much less cheek by jowl. All the so-called sciences that > deal with human behavior suffer from the same defect: for ethical and > sometimes logistical reasons, we cannot subject people to a rigorously > applied scientific methodolo
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Now we're getting somewhere. Terms like corporal punishment are no more helpful than spanking. We simply must make distinctions of degree. And the rhetoric of the movement against corporal punishment speaks in apparent absolutes and makes no distinctions of degree. I suspect this is much of what Vance has been reacting to. Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: > Art- many studies now document the extreme disabilities visited upon > abused children. The cost to society is very high. Is a pat on the > tush abuse? No. Is a whipping with a tree branch? Probably > The term spanking is not terribly helpful > > Marci > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: artspit...@aol.com > > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:08:19 > To: > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > ___ > 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[1] > > 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[2] > > 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. > > > 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 Links: -- [1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I'm certainly with you on tush-patting and branch-whipping. And on not taking an 11-year old who stops walking, speaking and eating to the hospital. I suspect (almost?) everyone on the list is. It's in-between that raises issues. I have no doubt that child abuse has a very high cost to society. I'm also confident that any effort to wipe out child abuse would also have a very high cost to society. Just look at the war on drugs. Who would ever have thought that we'd have SWAT teams breaking into innocent people's homes looking for marijuana, until we did? The costs of law enforcement need to be kept in mind, along with the costs of child abuse. There are no perfect solutions. Art In a message dated 8/3/09 10:48:33 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: > Art- many studies now document the extreme disabilities visited upon > abused children. The cost to society is very high. Is a pat on the tush > abuse? No. Is a whipping with a tree branch? Probably > The term spanking is not terribly helpful > ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&; bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Art- many studies now document the extreme disabilities visited upon abused children. The cost to society is very high. Is a pat on the tush abuse? No. Is a whipping with a tree branch? Probably The term spanking is not terribly helpful Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: artspit...@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:08:19 To: Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment ___ 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Art: This discussion began with a defense of "bruising" children. That is hardly spanking. I think if you look at those beyond death row -- simply violent criminals - you will find abuse in almost every circumstance. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Mon, 8/3/09, artspit...@aol.com wrote: From: artspit...@aol.com Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 9:08 PM Because a few seriously abused children become murderers, society needs to prohibit spanking? In a message dated 8/3/09 9:05:21 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection between the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the individuals who are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure out who acted more heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the death row inmate himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should be an adequate defense to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to make every effort to stem harm to children. ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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.
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Because a few seriously abused children become murderers, society needs to prohibit spanking? In a message dated 8/3/09 9:05:21 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes: > Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection > between the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the > individuals who are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure out > who acted more heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the death > row inmate himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should be an > adequate defense to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to make > every effort to stem harm to children. > ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&; bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Paul is correct here. If you want to evidence of the causal connection between the home situation and criminal behavior, read the files of the individuals who are on death row. Not infrequently, it is hard to figure out who acted more heinously -- the parents of the death row inmate or the death row inmate himself. I'm not saying that home circumstances should be an adequate defense to murder. Rather, as a society it is foolish not to make every effort to stem harm to children. Marci -Original Message- From: Paul Finkelman To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 6:42 pm Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance's response smacks of "red baiting." Because Communists use science he does not trust it? The KKK uses he Cross on its Robes? So I suppose we should all be careful of anyone professing to be a Christian? The Oklahoma City Bombers were veterans and "patriots" so beware of anyone who argued for patriotism? I wonder what Vance means by "so-called science" -- Biology (which surely deals with human behavior) does not apply in his world? Medical science (another of those "human sciences) is a "so-called" science -- so that if a physician testifies that a the bruises on a child were caused by a use of force by a much stronger human being (the parent beat the child) he will reject this as "so-called" science. As20for anecdotal evidence, we have very good evidence (even anecdotal evidence that apparently works better for Vance than other kinds) that most people who end up doing serious harm to others were abused, beating, "bruised," etc. by their parents. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Vance R. Koven wrote: From: Vance R. Koven Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 4:38 PM To me, "scientific" principles are to be avoided in anything to do with the law. Phrenology and eugenics (sorry, Eugene) were once state-of-the-art science. Communism was considered "scientific." Having been trained as a social scientist, I can tell you that those two words don't even belong in the same sentence, much less cheek by jowl. All the so-called sciences that deal with human behavior suffer from the same defect: for ethical and sometimes logistical reasons, we cannot subject people to a rigorously applied scientific methodology, and we cannot adequately isolate the thing being tested from the millions of other things that influence behavior. That's why so many of the scientific studies on virtually every topic are contradicted by other equally scientific studies. It does not require a suspicion of bad faith to draw the conclusion that science and human behavior are no better than nodding acquaintances; and every so often actual bad faith, prejudice and hubris manifest themselves in the investigation and interpretation of social studies (and even hard sciences). Just imagine if all those "scientific truths" had been ensconced in a legal system based on stare decisis? It's bad enough when legislative *policy* is based on science that proves an embarrassment fifty or fewer years later--which to some extent is a necessity--but to send people to jail based on crackpot pseudoscience, is something every decent society should resist. A degree of self-awareness and humility would go a long way here. Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience (but I've accumulated an awful lot of anecdotes over my life), children subjected to traditional child-rearing and discipline, short of battering and other major harm, will turn out fine or twisted, as their natures dictate. Same story with children raised on "progressive" principles. I realize this has strayed a bit from the original question, but I think it does relate to the deference the law should show--under a unified theory or multiple theories--to parents' choices of disciplinary philosophy. The law *ought* to defer to secular parents as much as to religious parents, but the latter should not be denied this deference just because the law has tied itself in knots over the basis for such deference to the former. Vance On Mon , Aug 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM, wrote: In response to Vance's question---Yes, objective standards are available from scientific sources. The question is whether a child is being harmed, and the level of harm can be determined by the extraordinary amount of research that is being done in the child abuse/child wellness arena. Legislatures are cap
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Huh? I don’t agree with Vance, but what’s with the red baiter baiting? Vance certainly wasn’t saying that “because Communists use science he does not trust it” – rather, he was saying that many unsound theories, such as Communism (presumably its approaches to economics and history), phrenology, eugenics, and the like were once seen by many as “scientifically” sound. Nor is Vance saying that any people who profess various views should be shunned – simply that certain approaches have a poor track record when applied to legal decisionmaking. And his focus was on sciences that deal with human behavior, which I take it does not include scientific testimony about bruises, or much biology. (I realize that one could read “sciences that deal with human behavior” so broadly as to cover the likely physical cause of a bruise, but I don’t see why one should read fellow list members’ posts so as to make them least plausible, rather than more plausible.) Again, I don’t agree with Vance, for reasons that I mentioned in a separate post. But there’s no need, it seems to me, to lash out against arguments that Vance didn’t make. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:43 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Vance's response smacks of "red baiting." Because Communists use science he does not trust it? The KKK uses he Cross on its Robes? So I suppose we should all be careful of anyone professing to be a Christian? The Oklahoma City Bombers were veterans and "patriots" so beware of anyone who argued for patriotism? I wonder what Vance means by "so-called science" -- Biology (which surely deals with human behavior) does not apply in his world? Medical science (another of those "human sciences) is a "so-called" science -- so that if a physician testifies that a the bruises on a child were caused by a use of force by a much stronger human being (the parent beat the child) he will reject this as "so-called" science. As for anecdotal evidence, we have very good evidence (even anecdotal evidence that apparently works better for Vance than other kinds) that most people who end up doing serious harm to others were abused, beating, "bruised," etc. by their parents. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Vance R. Koven wrote: From: Vance R. Koven Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 4:38 PM To me, "scientific" principles are to be avoided in anything to do with the law. Phrenology and eugenics (sorry, Eugene) were once state-of-the-art science. Communism was considered "scientific." Having been trained as a social scientist, I can tell you that those two words don't even belong in the same sentence, much less cheek by jowl. All the so-called sciences that deal with human behavior suffer from the same defect: for ethical and sometimes logistical reasons, we cannot subject people to a rigorously applied scientific methodology, and we cannot adequately isolate the thing being tested from the millions of other things that influence behavior. That's why so many of the scientific studies on virtually every topic are contradicted by other equally scientific studies. It does not require a suspicion of bad faith to draw the conclusion that science and human behavior are no better than nodding acquaintances; and every so often actual bad faith, prejudice and hubris manifest themselves in the investigation and interpretation of social studies (and even hard sciences). Just imagine if all those "scientific truths" had been ensconced in a legal system based on stare decisis? It's bad enough when legislative *policy* is based on science that proves an embarrassment fifty or fewer years later--which to some extent is a necessity--but to send people to jail based on crackpot pseudoscience, is something every decent society should resist. A degree of self-awareness and humility would go a long way here. Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience (but I've accumulated an awful lot of anecdotes over my life), children subjected to traditional child-rearing and discipline, short of battering and other major harm, will turn out fine or twisted, as their natures dictate. Same story with children raised on "progressive" principles. I realize this has strayed a bit from the original question,
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance's response smacks of "red baiting." Because Communists use science he does not trust it? The KKK uses he Cross on its Robes? So I suppose we should all be careful of anyone professing to be a Christian? The Oklahoma City Bombers were veterans and "patriots" so beware of anyone who argued for patriotism? I wonder what Vance means by "so-called science" -- Biology (which surely deals with human behavior) does not apply in his world? Medical science (another of those "human sciences) is a "so-called" science -- so that if a physician testifies that a the bruises on a child were caused by a use of force by a much stronger human being (the parent beat the child) he will reject this as "so-called" science. As for anecdotal evidence, we have very good evidence (even anecdotal evidence that apparently works better for Vance than other kinds) that most people who end up doing serious harm to others were abused, beating, "bruised," etc. by their parents. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Vance R. Koven wrote: From: Vance R. Koven Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 4:38 PM To me, "scientific" principles are to be avoided in anything to do with the law. Phrenology and eugenics (sorry, Eugene) were once state-of-the-art science. Communism was considered "scientific." Having been trained as a social scientist, I can tell you that those two words don't even belong in the same sentence, much less cheek by jowl. All the so-called sciences that deal with human behavior suffer from the same defect: for ethical and sometimes logistical reasons, we cannot subject people to a rigorously applied scientific methodology, and we cannot adequately isolate the thing being tested from the millions of other things that influence behavior. That's why so many of the scientific studies on virtually every topic are contradicted by other equally scientific studies. It does not require a suspicion of bad faith to draw the conclusion that science and human behavior are no better than nodding acquaintances; and every so often actual bad faith, prejudice and hubris manifest themselves in the investigation and interpretation of social studies (and even hard sciences). Just imagine if all those "scientific truths" had been ensconced in a legal system based on stare decisis? It's bad enough when legislative *policy* is based on science that proves an embarrassment fifty or fewer years later--which to some extent is a necessity--but to send people to jail based on crackpot pseudoscience, is something every decent society should resist. A degree of self-awareness and humility would go a long way here. Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience (but I've accumulated an awful lot of anecdotes over my life), children subjected to traditional child-rearing and discipline, short of battering and other major harm, will turn out fine or twisted, as their natures dictate. Same story with children raised on "progressive" principles. I realize this has strayed a bit from the original question, but I think it does relate to the deference the law should show--under a unified theory or multiple theories--to parents' choices of disciplinary philosophy. The law *ought* to defer to secular parents as much as to religious parents, but the latter should not be denied this deference just because the law has tied itself in knots over the basis for such deference to the former. Vance On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM, wrote: In response to Vance's question---Yes, objective standards are available from scientific sources. The question is whether a child is being harmed, and the level of harm can be determined by the extraordinary amount of research that is being done in the child abuse/child wellness arena. Legislatures are capable of drawing the line on the basis of these objective standards, and courts are capable of factfinding on the basis of experts. Obviously, there will be gray areas, but the scientific information goes a long way to rebutting the implicit claims by those protecting parental rights that children's well-being is improved by pain and/or browbeating. Thus, the issue is children's rights to bodily integrity and protection from serious harm vs. parental rights to control their children. That balancing is built into the law via Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Prince v. Massachusetts. Marci -Original Message----- From: Vance R. Koven To: Law & Religion issues f
RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I appreciate Vance's frustration with science and the law. But the alternative to attempt at scientific analysis of social problems generally isn't deep insight or logical moral proof - it's seat-of-the-pants guesswork. The law does, should, and will constrain some actions by parents with respect to their children. Some such lines may be obviously sound (deliberately killing is bad). But many will be controversial. And even if one has a substantial presumption in favor of parental discretion, presumably that presumption would be rebutted in many situations. Either it would be rebutted based on the best studies we have, or it would be rebutted based on casual guesses about what's sufficiently harmful and what's not. And I don't see why decisionmaking based on such casual guesses would necessarily be superior to decisionmaking based on a combination of such guesses coupled with serious studies. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:38 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To me, "scientific" principles are to be avoided in anything to do with the law. Phrenology and eugenics (sorry, Eugene) were once state-of-the-art science. Communism was considered "scientific." Having been trained as a social scientist, I can tell you that those two words don't even belong in the same sentence, much less cheek by jowl. All the so-called sciences that deal with human behavior suffer from the same defect: for ethical and sometimes logistical reasons, we cannot subject people to a rigorously applied scientific methodology, and we cannot adequately isolate the thing being tested from the millions of other things that influence behavior. That's why so many of the scientific studies on virtually every topic are contradicted by other equally scientific studies. It does not require a suspicion of bad faith to draw the conclusion that science and human behavior are no better than nodding acquaintances; and every so often actual bad faith, prejudice and hubris manifest themselves in the investigation and interpretation of social studies (and even hard sciences). Just imagine if all those "scientific truths" had been ensconced in a legal system based on stare decisis? It's bad enough when legislative *policy* is based on science that proves an embarrassment fifty or fewer years later--which to some extent is a necessity--but to send people to jail based on crackpot pseudoscience, is something every decent society should resist. A degree of self-awareness and humility would go a long way here. Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience (but I've accumulated an awful lot of anecdotes over my life), children subjected to traditional child-rearing and discipline, short of battering and other major harm, will turn out fine or twisted, as their natures dictate. Same story with children raised on "progressive" principles. I realize this has strayed a bit from the original question, but I think it does relate to the deference the law should show--under a unified theory or multiple theories--to parents' choices of disciplinary philosophy. The law *ought* to defer to secular parents as much as to religious parents, but the latter should not be denied this deference just because the law has tied itself in knots over the basis for such deference to the former. Vance On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM, mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote: In response to Vance's question---Yes, objective standards are available from scientific sources. The question is whether a child is being harmed, and the level of harm can be determined by the extraordinary amount of research that is being done in the child abuse/child wellness arena. Legislatures are capable of drawing the line on the basis of these objective standards, and courts are capable of factfinding on the basis of experts. Obviously, there will be gray areas, but the scientific information goes a long way to rebutting the implicit claims by those protecting parental rights that children's well-being is improved by pain and/or browbeating. Thus, the issue is children's rights to bodily integrity and protection from serious harm vs. parental rights to control their children. That balancing is built into the law via Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Prince v. Massachusetts. Marci -Original Message- From: Vance R. Koven mailto:vrko...@gmail.com>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Sent: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 9:57 pm Subject: Re: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Well really, I think some of you ar
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
To me, "scientific" principles are to be avoided in anything to do with the law. Phrenology and eugenics (sorry, Eugene) were once state-of-the-art science. Communism was considered "scientific." Having been trained as a social scientist, I can tell you that those two words don't even belong in the same sentence, much less cheek by jowl. All the so-called sciences that deal with human behavior suffer from the same defect: for ethical and sometimes logistical reasons, we cannot subject people to a rigorously applied scientific methodology, and we cannot adequately isolate the thing being tested from the millions of other things that influence behavior. That's why so many of the scientific studies on virtually every topic are contradicted by other equally scientific studies. It does not require a suspicion of bad faith to draw the conclusion that science and human behavior are no better than nodding acquaintances; and every so often actual bad faith, prejudice and hubris manifest themselves in the investigation and interpretation of social studies (and even hard sciences). Just imagine if all those "scientific truths" had been ensconced in a legal system based on stare decisis? It's bad enough when legislative *policy* is based on science that proves an embarrassment fifty or fewer years later--which to some extent is a necessity--but to send people to jail based on crackpot pseudoscience, is something every decent society should resist. A degree of self-awareness and humility would go a long way here. Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience (but I've accumulated an awful lot of anecdotes over my life), children subjected to traditional child-rearing and discipline, short of battering and other major harm, will turn out fine or twisted, as their natures dictate. Same story with children raised on "progressive" principles. I realize this has strayed a bit from the original question, but I think it does relate to the deference the law should show--under a unified theory or multiple theories--to parents' choices of disciplinary philosophy. The law *ought* to defer to secular parents as much as to religious parents, but the latter should not be denied this deference just because the law has tied itself in knots over the basis for such deference to the former. Vance On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM, wrote: > In response to Vance's question---Yes, objective standards are available > from scientific sources. The question is whether a child is being harmed, > and the level of harm can be determined by the extraordinary amount of > research that is being done in the child abuse/child wellness arena. > Legislatures are capable of drawing the line on the basis of these objective > standards, and courts are capable of factfinding on the basis of experts. > Obviously, there will be gray areas, but the scientific information goes a > long way to rebutting the implicit claims by those protecting > parental rights that children's well-being is improved by pain and/or > browbeating. Thus, the issue is children's rights to bodily integrity and > protection from serious harm vs. parental rights to control their > children. That balancing is built into the law via Pierce v. Society of > Sisters and Prince v. Massachusetts. > > Marci > > > -Original Message- > From: Vance R. Koven > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 9:57 pm > Subject: Re: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > Well really, I think some of you are assuming your conclusions. Whether > something is child abuse is what is to be determined, not what is to be > assumed. > Those of us of a certain age may recall being spanked. It did no lasting > harm, and may have done considerable good. However, whether it did or not, > it was not considered a matter for state intervention, and civilization did > not collapse on that account. > > The question is not, as Marci thinks, whether the law takes the side of > the parent or the child, it's whether and under what conditions the law > (i.e., the state) takes it unto itself to take sides and to intervene in > intra-family affairs. We have consensus on serious bodily harm, maybe even > on visible physical injuries like black eyes or bloody noses; when you get > into speculating about psychological and social "injuries" it starts to > shade over into state ownership of children. My smaller point is that > religions have always had rather a lot to say about the relationships within > families, particularly between parents and children, which is a zone that a > free exercise clause worthy of the name ought to respect. And my larger > point was, and remains, whether the state is bound, regardless of any other > considera
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I certainly am not saying that atheists *should* be prohibited from restraining their children, I was merely observing that there doesn't seem to be a well-developed constitutional doctrine whereby they could prevail against a legislative move to ban it, whereas there does seem to be such a doctrine with respect to religious parents. And I'm also not suggesting that corporal punishment is necessary or desirable in most, or even perhaps many, cases; but the push to ban it entirely, even in the absence of clear harm to the child (or based on an exaggerated tendency to find psychological harm) against conscientious parents who feel a religious compulsion to adhere to Biblical or traditional models smacks to me of class and religious prejudice. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Steven Jamar wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Vance R. Koven wrote: > > [snip] > After all, a parent's glowering is useless without at least the implied > credible threat of direct action if diplomacy fails. > > > This is a highly contestable statement at least to the extent it implies > the necessity of corporal punishment with respect to many if not most > children. It may well be true that with some children if you spare the rod > you spoil the child (even if you aren't an old testament adherent the > principle may be sound), but with some if you use the rod you teach > violence, and with others you never ever need corporal punishment. Some > restraint of the child's freedom may be necessary at times, but even that is > not needed with at least some children. And for others corporal punishment > will not ever do any good. > > As to my prior point -- even if parental control was premised on religious > teachings (and is for many people still), that hardly makes the case that > the constitutional right of parents to control their children's upbringing > is based in freedom of religion. Again, do you mean to suggest that > atheists have no rights to control their kids? That statutes relating to > age of emancipation are constitutionally valid only as to religious > adherents? That Jewish kids are emancipated at age 14? > > Or are the statutes not unconstitutional for another reason? Surely > parental rights derive at least in part from IXth Amendment, even if you > don't like the right of privacy as a basis. (I submit that that is a > terminology problem here -- the parental rights existed and exist under > every theory of constitutional interpretation since the adoption of it, even > if the term "privacy" is of "recent" vintage. > > Steve > > > -- > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 > Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice > http://iipsj.org > Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 > http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ > > Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the > certainty that something makes sense regardless of how it turns out. > *-- Vaclav Havel.* > > > > > > > > > ___ > 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. > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
In response to Vance's question---Yes, objective standards are available from scientific sources. The question is whether a child is being harmed, and the level of harm can be determined by the extraordinary amount of research that is being done in the child abuse/child wellness arena. Legislatures are capable of drawing the line on the basis of these objective standards, and courts are capable of factfinding on the basis of experts. Obviously, there will be gray areas, but the scientific information goes a long way to rebutting the implicit claims by those protecting parental rights that children's well-being is improved by pain and/or browbeating. Thus, the issue is children's rights to bodily integrity and protection from serious harm vs. parental rights to control their children. That balancing is built into the law via Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Prince v. Massachusetts. Marci -Original Message- From: Vance R. Koven To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 9:57 pm Subject: Re: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Well really, I think some of you are assuming your conclusions. Whether something is child abuse is what is to be determined, not what is to be assumed. Those of us of a certain age may recall being spanked. It did no lasting harm, and may have done considerable good. However, whether it did or not, it was not considered a matter20for state intervention, and civilization did not collapse on that account. The question is not, as Marci thinks, whether the law takes the side of the parent or the child, it's whether and under what conditions the law (i.e., the state) takes it unto itself to take sides and to intervene in intra-family affairs. We have consensus on serious bodily harm, maybe even on visible physical injuries like black eyes or bloody noses; when you get into speculating about psychological and social "injuries" it starts to shade over into state ownership of children. My smaller point is that religions have always had rather a lot to say about the relationships within families, particularly between parents and children, which is a zone that a free exercise clause worthy of the name ought to respect. And my larger point was, and remains, whether the state is bound, regardless of any other consideration (such as religious freedom) to take whatever view of child-rearing the secular upper middle class decides at any given moment to take. We have developed a rather Dickensian, and some might say irrationally sentimental, view of children and childhood, and I wonder if the Constitution really offers no refuge at all from having those sentiments shoved down the throats of dissenters. While in principle Eugene is right that whether the state intervenes shouldn't be determined by whether the parent is acting out of religious or secular motives, it is only in the case of religiously motivated parents that there is a legal hook on which to hang an interest in parenting methodology that requires the state to justify itself on the basis of compelling interest--unless you can engineer a free speech interest, which seems to me a stretch. It would be ironic indeed if the justification for parental authority is the concept of privacy. So the question remains, can the law come up with reasonably objective standards for determining when it will leave parental decisions on discipline to the parents? Is a black eye to be treated differently from a black-and-blue bum? Are parents to be held prisoner by their children's (purported) eggshell psyches? On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Eugene: Are you arguing that forcing a child to stay in his/her room is the equivalent of hitting someone hard enough to leave marks/ bruise that person. Parental authority presumably allows many things that cannot be done to adults, starting with sending children to bed against their will. Beating a child to the point of bruising sounds like abuse. Keeping a child in the house, like many other aspects of child rearing, is not likely to lead to physical harms of the child. Beating children does that -- and often leads to their death.. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Sun , 8/2/09, Volokh, Eugene wrote: From: Volokh, Eugene Subject: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:39 PM I should note, though, that I agree that parents’ rights to impose corporal punishment on their children – or absence of such rights, if the legal system ultimately comes to that – should not tu
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance-- I think what troubles me most about your posts on this topic is the assumption that a "highly influential social subset" is "insidiously'?raising the bar to protect children.??Who is in this "subset"?? In fact, the bar is being raised by those who are doing scientific research into child behavior and needs, the increasingly vocal survivors of child maltreatment, and those who are on the front lines working to create a more protective sphere for children, e.g., the National Association of Regulatory Agencies.? The American Academy of Pediatrics also?is on the leading edge of protecting children from harm, including in families.?? Vilifying those who are working out of a child-protective position does not legitimate a religious exemption.?? In any event, this?thread started with the?Wisconsin case involving the death of a child based on medical neglect, not corporal punishment or non-life-threatening treatment/procedures like circumcision.? Getting back to the death scenario--- ?I think there should be no criminal or civil?religious exemption for medical neglect resulting in the death or disability of a child, and that states need to punish parents who cross this line and educate the public that?parents will be punished for failure to act in these circumstances.? The civil side is also?very important, because?if a?religious parent permits a child to die and?a divorced spouse is not in the home to prevent it, the divorced spouse is suffering a grievous loss.??Moreover, religious entities and co-believers?that encourage such neglect should be named co-defendants.?? Are there?those on the list who would disagree with?where I have drawn the line? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University ? -Original Message- From: Vance R. Koven To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 9:50 am Subject: Re: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment While I don't think it's necessarily profitable to delve into the mists of time to figure out where civilization got the idea that parents should control their children's behavior, I think it's beyond controversy that many people consider it part of their specifically religious duty to discipline their children. While it's conceivable to stretch the ever-extrudable concept of privacy to cover non-religious motivations, it must be said that the right of privacy is the invention of modern times, and parental control distinctly otherwise. My point was simply that inasmuch as religious doctrine in many cases has codified social practices once universally accepted but now under cultural attack from a particular highly influential social subset, we find ourselves in the position of having ready-made legal doctrines to address the religiously motivated, but not really, without such a stretch, available to secular adherents. Just one of those ironies of legal development.? I'm not opposed to the bright-line rule, adopted after adequate discussion and consideration of all viewpoints, that says "if we can see the injury it's subject to legal regulation," I'm just opposed to the insidious extension of the rule to cover all the other ways parents may want to put junior in his place, including the occasional insult to the rump. After all, a parent's glowering is useless without at least the implied credible threat of direct action if diplomacy fails. On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: the parental rights stem not from religion, surely! ?but rather from the constitutional right of privacy. ?or are you claiming, vance, that atheists don't have parental rights that can be protected by the constitution!? Steve On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Vance R. Koven wrote: Well really, I think some of you are assuming your conclusions. Whether something is child abuse is what is to be determined, not what is to be assumed.? Those of us of a certain age may recall being spanked. It did no lasting harm, and may have done considerable good. However, whether it did or not, it was not considered a matter for state intervention, and civilization did not collapse on that account.? The question is not, as Marci thinks, whether the law takes the side of the parent or the child, it's whether and under what conditions the law (i.e., the state) takes it unto itself to take sides and to intervene in intra-family affairs. We have consensus on serious bodily harm, maybe even on visible physical injuries like black eyes or bloody noses; when you get into speculating about psychological and social "injuries" it starts to shade over into state ownership of children. My smaller point is that religions have always had rather a lot to say about the relationships within families, par
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Vance R. Koven wrote: [snip] After all, a parent's glowering is useless without at least the implied credible threat of direct action if diplomacy fails. This is a highly contestable statement at least to the extent it implies the necessity of corporal punishment with respect to many if not most children. It may well be true that with some children if you spare the rod you spoil the child (even if you aren't an old testament adherent the principle may be sound), but with some if you use the rod you teach violence, and with others you never ever need corporal punishment. Some restraint of the child's freedom may be necessary at times, but even that is not needed with at least some children. And for others corporal punishment will not ever do any good. As to my prior point -- even if parental control was premised on religious teachings (and is for many people still), that hardly makes the case that the constitutional right of parents to control their children's upbringing is based in freedom of religion. Again, do you mean to suggest that atheists have no rights to control their kids? That statutes relating to age of emancipation are constitutionally valid only as to religious adherents? That Jewish kids are emancipated at age 14? Or are the statutes not unconstitutional for another reason? Surely parental rights derive at least in part from IXth Amendment, even if you don't like the right of privacy as a basis. (I submit that that is a terminology problem here -- the parental rights existed and exist under every theory of constitutional interpretation since the adoption of it, even if the term "privacy" is of "recent" vintage. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense regardless of how it turns out. -- Vaclav Havel. ___ 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: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
While I don't think it's necessarily profitable to delve into the mists of time to figure out where civilization got the idea that parents should control their children's behavior, I think it's beyond controversy that many people consider it part of their specifically religious duty to discipline their children. While it's conceivable to stretch the ever-extrudable concept of privacy to cover non-religious motivations, it must be said that the right of privacy is the invention of modern times, and parental control distinctly otherwise. My point was simply that inasmuch as religious doctrine in many cases has codified social practices once universally accepted but now under cultural attack from a particular highly influential social subset, we find ourselves in the position of having ready-made legal doctrines to address the religiously motivated, but not really, without such a stretch, available to secular adherents. Just one of those ironies of legal development. I'm not opposed to the bright-line rule, adopted after adequate discussion and consideration of all viewpoints, that says "if we can see the injury it's subject to legal regulation," I'm just opposed to the insidious extension of the rule to cover all the other ways parents may want to put junior in his place, including the occasional insult to the rump. After all, a parent's glowering is useless without at least the implied credible threat of direct action if diplomacy fails. On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Steven Jamar wrote: > the parental rights stem not from religion, surely! but rather from the > constitutional right of privacy. or are you claiming, vance, that atheists > don't have parental rights that can be protected by the constitution!? > Steve > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Vance R. Koven wrote: > >> Well really, I think some of you are assuming your conclusions. Whether >> something is child abuse is what is to be determined, not what is to be >> assumed. >> Those of us of a certain age may recall being spanked. It did no lasting >> harm, and may have done considerable good. However, whether it did or not, >> it was not considered a matter for state intervention, and civilization did >> not collapse on that account. >> >> The question is not, as Marci thinks, whether the law takes the side of >> the parent or the child, it's whether and under what conditions the law >> (i.e., the state) takes it unto itself to take sides and to intervene in >> intra-family affairs. We have consensus on serious bodily harm, maybe even >> on visible physical injuries like black eyes or bloody noses; when you get >> into speculating about psychological and social "injuries" it starts to >> shade over into state ownership of children. My smaller point is that >> religions have always had rather a lot to say about the relationships within >> families, particularly between parents and children, which is a zone that a >> free exercise clause worthy of the name ought to respect. And my larger >> point was, and remains, whether the state is bound, regardless of any other >> consideration (such as religious freedom) to take whatever view of >> child-rearing the secular upper middle class decides at any given moment to >> take. We have developed a rather Dickensian, and some might say irrationally >> sentimental, view of children and childhood, and I wonder if the >> Constitution really offers no refuge at all from having those sentiments >> shoved down the throats of dissenters. >> >> While in principle Eugene is right that whether the state intervenes >> shouldn't be determined by whether the parent is acting out of religious or >> secular motives, it is only in the case of religiously motivated parents >> that there is a legal hook on which to hang an interest in parenting >> methodology that requires the state to justify itself on the basis of >> compelling interest--unless you can engineer a free speech interest, which >> seems to me a stretch. It would be ironic indeed if the justification for >> parental authority is the concept of privacy. >> >> So the question remains, can the law come up with reasonably objective >> standards for determining when it will leave parental decisions on >> discipline to the parents? Is a black eye to be treated differently from a >> black-and-blue bum? Are parents to be held prisoner by their children's >> (purported) eggshell psyches? >> >> > > Prof. Steven Jamar > Howard University School of Law > Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice > (IIPSJ) Inc. > > ___ > 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 lis
RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Well, since I started my post with “I’m certainly not convinced that corporal punishment, especially to the extent of bruising, is proper – but neither am I convinced of the opposite,” and since it’s pretty clear that time-outs are proper, I can’t very well be arguing that forcing a child to stay in his room is the equivalent of hitting someone hard enough to leave marks. Rather, I was arguing against the claim in Prof. Finkelman’s original post that the standards for what may be done to a child must be equivalent to the standards for what may be done to a nonconsenting adult, or at least are heavily informed by the standards for what may be done to an adult. Prof. Finkelman’s post read: I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not consider it a battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what used to be common law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point of bruising them. Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard to imagine how a claim of religious belief would justify it. I suppose adults could consent to such interpersonal behavior. but since children cannot legally consent to such harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify such abuse. I think the “you must stay in your room” example shows that the standards may well be different. It might be that corporal punishment, especially of a level that would leave bruises, should indeed be categorically forbidden, even in cases of very serious misconduct by the children. But asking what we would consider a battery (or false imprisonment or what have you) if it’s done to us is not particularly helpful, I think. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 4:09 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment Eugene: Are you arguing that forcing a child to stay in his/her room is the equivalent of hitting someone hard enough to leave marks/ bruise that person. Parental authority presumably allows many things that cannot be done to adults, starting with sending children to bed against their will. Beating a child to the point of bruising sounds like abuse. Keeping a child in the house, like many other aspects of child rearing, is not likely to lead to physical harms of the child. Beating children does that -- and often leads to their death.. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Volokh, Eugene wrote: From: Volokh, Eugene Subject: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:39 PM I should note, though, that I agree that parents’ rights to impose corporal punishment on their children – or absence of such rights, if the legal system ultimately comes to that – should not turn on the parents’ religiosity. Eugene From: Volokh, Eugene Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:38 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment I’m certainly not convinced that corporal punishment, especially to the extent of bruising, is proper – but neither am I convinced of the opposite. Nor is it helpful, I think, to analogize to what we’d perceive if it happened to us. If someone forced us to stay in our rooms even for a short time, that would surely be a tort or a crime, and a more serious one than battery; but not so for parents demanding that their children stay in their room as punishment, at least unless it gets much more severe. The rules for children are not the same as for adults, and the analogy to what is tolerable for adult-adult relations strikes me as not very helpful. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:27 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment I -- ___ 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: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
the parental rights stem not from religion, surely! but rather from the constitutional right of privacy. or are you claiming, vance, that atheists don't have parental rights that can be protected by the constitution!? Steve On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Vance R. Koven wrote: > Well really, I think some of you are assuming your conclusions. Whether > something is child abuse is what is to be determined, not what is to be > assumed. > Those of us of a certain age may recall being spanked. It did no lasting > harm, and may have done considerable good. However, whether it did or not, > it was not considered a matter for state intervention, and civilization did > not collapse on that account. > > The question is not, as Marci thinks, whether the law takes the side of the > parent or the child, it's whether and under what conditions the law (i.e., > the state) takes it unto itself to take sides and to intervene in > intra-family affairs. We have consensus on serious bodily harm, maybe even > on visible physical injuries like black eyes or bloody noses; when you get > into speculating about psychological and social "injuries" it starts to > shade over into state ownership of children. My smaller point is that > religions have always had rather a lot to say about the relationships within > families, particularly between parents and children, which is a zone that a > free exercise clause worthy of the name ought to respect. And my larger > point was, and remains, whether the state is bound, regardless of any other > consideration (such as religious freedom) to take whatever view of > child-rearing the secular upper middle class decides at any given moment to > take. We have developed a rather Dickensian, and some might say irrationally > sentimental, view of children and childhood, and I wonder if the > Constitution really offers no refuge at all from having those sentiments > shoved down the throats of dissenters. > > While in principle Eugene is right that whether the state intervenes > shouldn't be determined by whether the parent is acting out of religious or > secular motives, it is only in the case of religiously motivated parents > that there is a legal hook on which to hang an interest in parenting > methodology that requires the state to justify itself on the basis of > compelling interest--unless you can engineer a free speech interest, which > seems to me a stretch. It would be ironic indeed if the justification for > parental authority is the concept of privacy. > > So the question remains, can the law come up with reasonably objective > standards for determining when it will leave parental decisions on > discipline to the parents? Is a black eye to be treated differently from a > black-and-blue bum? Are parents to be held prisoner by their children's > (purported) eggshell psyches? > > Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice (IIPSJ) Inc. ___ 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: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Well really, I think some of you are assuming your conclusions. Whether something is child abuse is what is to be determined, not what is to be assumed. Those of us of a certain age may recall being spanked. It did no lasting harm, and may have done considerable good. However, whether it did or not, it was not considered a matter for state intervention, and civilization did not collapse on that account. The question is not, as Marci thinks, whether the law takes the side of the parent or the child, it's whether and under what conditions the law (i.e., the state) takes it unto itself to take sides and to intervene in intra-family affairs. We have consensus on serious bodily harm, maybe even on visible physical injuries like black eyes or bloody noses; when you get into speculating about psychological and social "injuries" it starts to shade over into state ownership of children. My smaller point is that religions have always had rather a lot to say about the relationships within families, particularly between parents and children, which is a zone that a free exercise clause worthy of the name ought to respect. And my larger point was, and remains, whether the state is bound, regardless of any other consideration (such as religious freedom) to take whatever view of child-rearing the secular upper middle class decides at any given moment to take. We have developed a rather Dickensian, and some might say irrationally sentimental, view of children and childhood, and I wonder if the Constitution really offers no refuge at all from having those sentiments shoved down the throats of dissenters. While in principle Eugene is right that whether the state intervenes shouldn't be determined by whether the parent is acting out of religious or secular motives, it is only in the case of religiously motivated parents that there is a legal hook on which to hang an interest in parenting methodology that requires the state to justify itself on the basis of compelling interest--unless you can engineer a free speech interest, which seems to me a stretch. It would be ironic indeed if the justification for parental authority is the concept of privacy. So the question remains, can the law come up with reasonably objective standards for determining when it will leave parental decisions on discipline to the parents? Is a black eye to be treated differently from a black-and-blue bum? Are parents to be held prisoner by their children's (purported) eggshell psyches? On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: > Eugene: > > Are you arguing that forcing a child to stay in his/her room is the > equivalent of hitting someone hard enough to leave marks/ bruise that > person. > > Parental authority presumably allows many things that cannot be done to > adults, starting with sending children to bed against their will. Beating a > child to the point of bruising sounds like abuse. Keeping a child in the > house, like many other aspects of child rearing, is not likely to lead to > physical harms of the child. Beating children does that -- and often leads > to their death.. > > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, NY 12208 > > 518-445-3386 (p) > 518-445-3363 (f) > > pf...@albanylaw.edu > > www.paulfinkelman.com > > --- On *Sun, 8/2/09, Volokh, Eugene * wrote: > > > From: Volokh, Eugene > Subject: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:39 PM > > I should note, though, that I agree that parents’ rights > to impose corporal punishment on their children – or absence of such rights, > if the legal system ultimately comes to that – should not turn on the > parents’ religiosity. > > > > Eugene > > > > *From:* Volokh, Eugene > *Sent:* Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:38 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > >I’m certainly not convinced that corporal punishment, > especially to the extent of bruising, is proper – but neither am I convinced > of the opposite. Nor is it helpful, I think, to analogize to what we’d > perceive if it happened to us. If someone forced us to stay in our rooms > even for a short time, that would surely be a tort or a crime, and a more > serious one than battery; but not so for parents demanding that their > children stay in their room as punishment, at least unless it gets much more > severe. The rules for children are not the same as for adults, and the > analogy to what is tolerable for adult-adult relations strikes me as not > very helpful. &
Re: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Eugene: Are you arguing that forcing a child to stay in his/her room is the equivalent of hitting someone hard enough to leave marks/ bruise that person. Parental authority presumably allows many things that cannot be done to adults, starting with sending children to bed against their will. Beating a child to the point of bruising sounds like abuse. Keeping a child in the house, like many other aspects of child rearing, is not likely to lead to physical harms of the child. Beating children does that -- and often leads to their death. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Volokh, Eugene wrote: From: Volokh, Eugene Subject: FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:39 PM I should note, though, that I agree that parents’ rights to impose corporal punishment on their children – or absence of such rights, if the legal system ultimately comes to that – should not turn on the parents’ religiosity. Eugene From: Volokh, Eugene Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:38 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment I’m certainly not convinced that corporal punishment, especially to the extent of bruising, is proper – but neither am I convinced of the opposite. Nor is it helpful, I think, to analogize to what we’d perceive if it happened to us. If someone forced us to stay in our rooms even for a short time, that would surely be a tort or a crime, and a more serious one than battery; but not so for parents demanding that their children stay in their room as punishment, at least unless it gets much more severe. The rules for children are not the same as for adults, and the analogy to what is tolerable for adult-adult relations strikes me as not very helpful. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:27 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment I -- ___ 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.
FW: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I should note, though, that I agree that parents' rights to impose corporal punishment on their children - or absence of such rights, if the legal system ultimately comes to that - should not turn on the parents' religiosity. Eugene From: Volokh, Eugene Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:38 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment I'm certainly not convinced that corporal punishment, especially to the extent of bruising, is proper - but neither am I convinced of the opposite. Nor is it helpful, I think, to analogize to what we'd perceive if it happened to us. If someone forced us to stay in our rooms even for a short time, that would surely be a tort or a crime, and a more serious one than battery; but not so for parents demanding that their children stay in their room as punishment, at least unless it gets much more severe. The rules for children are not the same as for adults, and the analogy to what is tolerable for adult-adult relations strikes me as not very helpful. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:27 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment I think Marci is very much right on this one. I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not consider it a battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what used to be common law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point of bruising them. Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard to imagine how a claim of religious belief would justify it. I suppose adults could consent to such interpersonal behavior. but since children cannot legally consent to such harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify such abuse. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Sun, 8/2/09, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: From: hamilto...@aol.com Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:05 PM I think Vance states the question misleadingly. The question is not when will the "interest in religious freedom [come] to the forefront" but rather when will the balance of interests weigh more heavily on the parent's rather than the child's side. The child's interest in life and in freedom from injury must be weighed against the parents' religious interests. Results like this one are evidence that the death of a child is no longer a negligible event when it is an "accident" following faith healing; rather, children's lives are valuable. The very fact the Wis prosecutors pursued this case is evidence of that social movement. I would not characterize permitting the death of a child from diabetes as "negligent." It is reckless in the best light. The suffering is extraordinary and drawn-out. There is lots of time to figure out the illness is no flu and to get the child to the hospital to be saved from otherwise certain death. The arrogance of this particular believer is remarkable; the girl could not walk. Since when is that a symptom of the flu? I am deeply concerned that "minor bruising" would be on the list of child injuries we would assume are legitimately subject to parents' interests. Perpetrators of domestic abuse are often quite skilled at leaving few visible signs of the actual abuse. The question here is the level of suffering of the child, which must be taken into account whether it is physical or psychological. Which religions engage in verbal browbeating to inculcate personal humility? And are they ever inflicted on men or is it just men who inflict it on women and children? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious-freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the interest in religious freedom to the forefront? Social or psychological inj
RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I'm certainly not convinced that corporal punishment, especially to the extent of bruising, is proper - but neither am I convinced of the opposite. Nor is it helpful, I think, to analogize to what we'd perceive if it happened to us. If someone forced us to stay in our rooms even for a short time, that would surely be a tort or a crime, and a more serious one than battery; but not so for parents demanding that their children stay in their room as punishment, at least unless it gets much more severe. The rules for children are not the same as for adults, and the analogy to what is tolerable for adult-adult relations strikes me as not very helpful. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 2:27 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment I think Marci is very much right on this one. I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not consider it a battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what used to be common law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point of bruising them. Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard to imagine how a claim of religious belief would justify it. I suppose adults could consent to such interpersonal behavior. but since children cannot legally consent to such harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify such abuse. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Sun, 8/2/09, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: From: hamilto...@aol.com Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:05 PM I think Vance states the question misleadingly. The question is not when will the "interest in religious freedom [come] to the forefront" but rather when will the balance of interests weigh more heavily on the parent's rather than the child's side. The child's interest in life and in freedom from injury must be weighed against the parents' religious interests. Results like this one are evidence that the death of a child is no longer a negligible event when it is an "accident" following faith healing; rather, children's lives are valuable. The very fact the Wis prosecutors pursued this case is evidence of that social movement. I would not characterize permitting the death of a child from diabetes as "negligent." It is reckless in the best light. The suffering is extraordinary and drawn-out. There is lots of time to figure out the illness is no flu and to get the child to the hospital to be saved from otherwise certain death. The arrogance of this particular believer is remarkable; the girl could not walk. Since when is that a symptom of the flu? I am deeply concerned that "minor bruising" would be on the list of child injuries we would assume are legitimately subject to parents' interests. Perpetrators of domestic abuse are often quite skilled at leaving few visible signs of the actual abuse. The question here is the level of suffering of the child, which must be taken into account whether it is physical or psychological. Which religions engage in verbal browbeating to inculcate personal humility? And are they ever inflicted on men or is it just men who inflict it on women and children? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious-freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the interest in religious freedom to the forefront? Social or psychological injuries? Minor bruising? For example, it seems fairly uncontroversial now for religious parents to home-school children despite any putative social isolation, while corporal punishment is either in a gray area or actively persecuted. I can imagine a degree of purely verbal browbeating intended to inculcate personal humility, a virtue in many religious traditions, that would offend outsiders. Are there any objective standards that can be brought to bear
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I think Marci is very much right on this one. I have to wonder if there is anyone on this list who would not consider it a battery (or assault depending on what your state calls what used to be common law battery) if someone deliberately hit them to the point of bruising them. Sounds like a tort or a crime to me, and I find it hard to imagine how a claim of religious belief would justify it. I suppose adults could consent to such interpersonal behavior. but since children cannot legally consent to such harms, I have to wonder how Vance can justify such abuse. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Sun, 8/2/09, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: From: hamilto...@aol.com Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 5:05 PM I think Vance states the question misleadingly. The question is not when will the "interest in religious freedom [come] to the forefront" but rather when will the balance of interests weigh more heavily on the parent's rather than the child's side. The child's interest in life and in freedom from injury must be weighed against the parents' religious interests. Results like this one are evidence that the death of a child is no longer a negligible event when it is an "accident" following faith healing; rather, children's lives are valuable. The very fact the Wis prosecutors pursued this case is evidence of that social movement. I would not characterize permitting the death of a child from diabetes as "negligent." It is reckless in the best light. The suffering is extraordinary and drawn-out. There is lots of time to figure out the illness is no flu and to get the child to the hospital to be saved from otherwise certain death. The arrogance of this particular believer is remarkable; the girl could not walk. Since when is that a symptom of the flu? I am deeply concerned that "minor bruising" would be on the list of child injuries we would assume are legitimately subject to parents' interests. Perpetrators of domestic abuse are often quite skilled at leaving few visible signs of the actual abuse. The question here is the level of suffering of the child, which must be taken into account whether it is physical or psychological. Which religions engage in verbal browbeating to inculcate personal humility? And are they ever inflicted on men or is it just men who inflict it on women and children? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious-freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the interest in religious freedom to the forefront? Social or psychological injuries? Minor bruising? For example, it seems fairly uncontroversial now for religious parents to home-school children despite any putative social isolation, while corporal punishment is either in a gray area or actively persecuted. I can imagine a degree of purely verbal browbeating intended to inculcate personal humility, a virtue in many religious traditions, that would offend outsiders. Are there any objective standards that can be brought to bear here, or do the mores of the chattering classes always prevail? Vance -Original Message- From: Vance R. Koven To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 11:08 am Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious-freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the inte
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
I think Vance states the question misleadingly.? The question is not when will the "interest in religious freedom [come] to the forefront" but rather when will the balance of interests weigh more heavily on the parent's rather than the child's side.? The child's interest in life and in freedom from injury must be weighed against the parents' religious interests.??Results like this one?are evidence that the death of a child is no longer a negligible event when it is an "accident" following faith healing; rather, children's lives are valuable.? The very fact the Wis prosecutors pursued this case is evidence of that social movement.? I would not characterize permitting the death of a child from diabetes as "negligent."? It is reckless in the best light.? The suffering is extraordinary and drawn-out.? There is lots of time to figure out?the illness?is no flu and to get the child to the hospital to be saved from otherwise certain death.? The arrogance of this particular believer is remarkable; the girl could not walk.? Since when is that a symptom of the flu? I am deeply concerned that "minor bruising" would be on the list of child injuries we would assume are?legitimately?subject to parents' interests.? Perpetrators of domestic abuse are often quite skilled at leaving few visible signs of the actual abuse.? The question here is the level of suffering of the child, which must be taken into account whether it is physical or psychological.? Which religions engage in verbal browbeating to inculcate personal humility?? And are they ever inflicted on men or is it just men who inflict it on women and children? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious-freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the interest in religious freedom to the forefront? Social or psychological injuries? Minor bruising? For example, it seems fairly uncontroversial now for religious parents to home-school children despite any putative social isolation, while corporal punishment is either in a gray area or actively persecuted. I can imagine a degree of purely verbal browbeating intended to inculcate personal humility, a virtue in many religious traditions, that would offend outsiders. Are there any objective standards that can be brought to bear here, or do the mores of the chattering classes always prevail? Vance -Original Message- From: Vance R. Koven To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Sun, Aug 2, 2009 11:08 am Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious-freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the interest in religious freedom to the forefront? Social or psychological injuries? Minor bruising? For example, it seems fairly uncontroversial now for religious parents to home-school children despite any putative social isolation, while corporal punishment is either in a gray area or actively persecuted. I can imagine a degree of purely verbal browbeating intended to inculcate personal humility, a virtue in many religious traditions, that would offend outsiders. Are there any objective standards that can be brought to bear here, or do the mores of the chattering classes always prevail? Vance On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steven Jamar wrote: Some time ago the mother was convicted of murder, and now the father has been convicted as well. ?Their daughter had undiagnosed diabetes and when she could not walk, talk, eat, or speak, they still did not take her to the hospital, but prayed instead. ?He describes himself as a born-again Christian and had studied to become a Pentacostal minister. AP story?this?morning?in?the?Washingto
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance is of course right on the degree of homicide. My sloppy mistake in criminal law terminology. Steve On Aug 2, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Vance R. Koven wrote: It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious- freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the interest in religious freedom to the forefront? Social or psychological injuries? Minor bruising? For example, it seems fairly uncontroversial now for religious parents to home-school children despite any putative social isolation, while corporal punishment is either in a gray area or actively persecuted. I can imagine a degree of purely verbal browbeating intended to inculcate personal humility, a virtue in many religious traditions, that would offend outsiders. Are there any objective standards that can be brought to bear here, or do the mores of the chattering classes always prevail? Vance On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steven Jamar wrote: Some time ago the mother was convicted of murder, and now the father has been convicted as well. Their daughter had undiagnosed diabetes and when she could not walk, talk, eat, or speak, they still did not take her to the hospital, but prayed instead. He describes himself as a born-again Christian and had studied to become a Pentacostal minister. AP story this morning in the Washington Post: WISCONSIN Treatment by Prayer Results in Conviction A Wisconsin jury Saturday found a father guilty of killing his daughter by praying instead of getting her medical care. Dale Neumann, 47, was charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the March 2003 death of his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors say he should have taken the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or speak. Neumann testified during his trial that he expected God to heal his daughter and didn't believe she would die. He has described himself as a born-again Christian who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister. Neumann's wife, Leilani, was convicted on the same charge in the spring and is scheduled for sentencing Oct. 6. Both face up to 25 years in prison. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are. -- Augustine of Hippo. ___ 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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ "The most precious things one gets in life are not those one gets for money." Albert Einstein ___ 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 t
Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
It would have been rather shocking if this had been a murder conviction, but it wasn't. Murder requires intent to do injury, and obviously, the parents--if their testimony was accepted--had no such intent. This was in effect negligent homicide, which is quite bad enough, and certainly consistent with the Christian Science cases. A related thought: although prevention of death or serious bodily injury to third parties is about as compelling an interest as one can imagine, even outside the Smith zone, overriding religious-freedom objections, at what stage does the government interest fade sufficiently to bring the interest in religious freedom to the forefront? Social or psychological injuries? Minor bruising? For example, it seems fairly uncontroversial now for religious parents to home-school children despite any putative social isolation, while corporal punishment is either in a gray area or actively persecuted. I can imagine a degree of purely verbal browbeating intended to inculcate personal humility, a virtue in many religious traditions, that would offend outsiders. Are there any objective standards that can be brought to bear here, or do the mores of the chattering classes always prevail? Vance On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steven Jamar wrote: > Some time ago the mother was convicted of murder, and now the father has > been convicted as well. Their daughter had undiagnosed diabetes and when > she could not walk, talk, eat, or speak, they still did not take her to the > hospital, but prayed instead. He describes himself as a born-again > Christian and had studied to become a Pentacostal minister. > AP story this morning in the Washington Post: > > *WISCONSIN* > > *Treatment by Prayer Results in Conviction* > > A Wisconsin jury Saturday found a father guilty of killing his daughter by > praying instead of getting her medical care. > > Dale Neumann, 47, was charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the > March 2003 death of his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed > diabetes. Prosecutors say he should have taken the girl to a hospital > because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or speak. > > Neumann testified during his trial that he expected God to heal his > daughter and didn't believe she would die. He has described himself as a > born-again Christian who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister. > Neumann's wife, Leilani, was convicted on the same charge in the spring and > is scheduled for sentencing Oct. 6. Both face up to 25 years in prison. > > > -- > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 > Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice > http://iipsj.org > Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 > http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ > > Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger > at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way > they are. > *-- Augustine of Hippo.* > > > > > > > > ___ > 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. > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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.
Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Some time ago the mother was convicted of murder, and now the father has been convicted as well. Their daughter had undiagnosed diabetes and when she could not walk, talk, eat, or speak, they still did not take her to the hospital, but prayed instead. He describes himself as a born-again Christian and had studied to become a Pentacostal minister. AP story this morning in the Washington Post: WISCONSIN Treatment by Prayer Results in Conviction A Wisconsin jury Saturday found a father guilty of killing his daughter by praying instead of getting her medical care. Dale Neumann, 47, was charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the March 2003 death of his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors say he should have taken the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or speak. Neumann testified during his trial that he expected God to heal his daughter and didn't believe she would die. He has described himself as a born-again Christian who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister. Neumann's wife, Leilani, was convicted on the same charge in the spring and is scheduled for sentencing Oct. 6. Both face up to 25 years in prison. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are. -- Augustine of Hippo. ___ 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.
