I am not sure that you can even rely on a claim that the sexual function was
necessarily reduced; I know that some proponents of circumcision claim that
circumcision actually enhances sexual function. Would you agree that if the
evidence on that point is ambiguous or equivocal, then circumcisio
The quote from Boldt rather strikingly focuses on how forcing a
12-year-old to be circumcised is bad for the 12-year-old because it "could
seriously affect the relationship between [him] and father." Is that really
all there is to it? Might it not also be bad because a 12-year-old shou
The question, I think, isn't whether there should be a crime of
circumcision as such. Rather, the question is whether the normal crime of
mayhem, assault, battery, or child abuse - whatever label a particular
jurisdiction would use for cutting off a part of an infant's body - sh
I agree that the danger to infants from full immersion baptism is very
low and perhaps zero; the hypothetical was that it happened in "a handful of
cases," but I think that's just a hypothetical. As to what burdens the
government imposes to avoid "a handful" of deaths of infants, I thin
Isn't the key problem precisely that the claimed "religious
liberty ... of the family" here refers to the claimed religious liberty of one
individual to alter the body of a different individual? And I don't see why
that is a normatively appealing "liberty," given that it impinge
The difficulty is that newborn males aren't Jewish in the sense
of actually believing in the Jewish religion - they are, after all, newborns.
When they are 18, they might be religious enough (or culturally identified
enough) to appreciate being circumcised if they had been circu
My Dad gave me a sip of "Dome foam" at an Astros game when I was fairly young,
which had the (almost certainly intended) effect of putting me off of beer
until later than many of my peers. The sad part is that we will never know
whether that act was in the best interests of the child or whether
I do think Troxel and Yoder particularly were wrongly decided. The more
egregious was Yoder, which was based on a romantic view of a religious
community that does not operate in the best interest of the child in far too
many situations
On the increasing rights of children, I am talking about t
I am wondering if Marci thinks Troxel v. Granville (unconstitutional for
legislature to provide for grandparent visitation rights over objection of
custodial parent) is correctly decided, or consistent with her views. Her
assertion that "Children are increasingly being treated as independent
person
I agree with most of what Chip says about hybrid rights and religious
accommodation of rights protected activity. As a general principle, religious
people should not receive preferential accommodations when exercising
fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, or voting, or the right to marry
I would disagree with Chip that the concept of best interest of the child
continues to afford a presumption that parents act in the best interest of the
child. Children are increasingly being treated as independent persons whose
interests must be examined separately.
I do agree w Chip, though
If Smith's "hybrid rights" explanation of Yoder is all there is against my
argument that religious motivation should add or subtract nothing from
parental rights to engage in particular child-rearing practices, I'll
happily rest my case. All I'm suggesting is that once we have a general
set of co
If I recall correctly, the Court in Yoder relied on the free exercise clause in
holding that the Amish had the right to an exemption from the otherwise
applicable law with respect to sending children to school. Religion does not
seem, in the Court's view, to be irrelevant to parental rights. Smi
Many would argue that it is in the "best interest of the child" to welcome him
into a supportive, religious community with shared values and age-old historic
traditions-- that include circumcision or full immersion baptism or some other
ritual that might create some small risk of injury (just as
Our ordinary, wide-spread, and long-standing presumption is that
parents/guardians act in the best interests of their minor children. The
state may intervene -- overcome that presumption -- when parents/guardians
inflict significant harm on their children. Of course, we can all argue
about what c
If we could categorize all state action into these three categories, life would
be a lot easier. But the parameters of case 2 are incredibly unclear as to what
constitutes due care regarding the risk of harm. Say a state enacts a law
prohibiting adults from providing minors alcoholic beverages.
What kind of "conduct" are you talking about in category 3? Some people will
say that keeping kids on the farm instead of sending them to school is abusive
or harmful. Cf. Yoder. I don't think you can define the category simply as
"abuse" "neglect" or "harm" because all kinds of parenting activ
I would like some clarification from those relying on purported "parental
rights." The use of the term "parental right" is freighted w social and
cultural value but very little legal value.
Pierce v Society of Sisters is balanced by Prince. So the use of "right" in
this context is a dead
In the context of abuse of children, religion just does not and should not
matter to the state. There are three general cases:
1. The conduct is abusive per se (e.g., repeated and heavy beatings of a
child). We don't and should not care whether the perpetrator claims
religious justification.
Let me try again. The discussion has focused on the rights of the parents and
of the state. The children have come into the discussion only as objects of
control or protection by the parents or state; that is the context of the "best
interests of the child" standard. But isn't the state depri
I thought we were long past the argument that the only basis for protecting
religious liberty was that the state had a favorable perspective on the
religious belief and practice at issue -- whether it is saving a child's soul
through baptism or fulfilling the obligation to circumcise an 8 day ol
I'm not sure who the "we" is in Eugene's hypothesis, but nobody is
proposing to add anything to defenses, since it's the existence of the *
offense* that is under discussion. Nobody contests that the crime of
murder, or attempted murder, exists with a rather precise definition. There
is as yet no c
I think Howard's baptism example helps make my point, not his. No one
thinks that full immersion of children in water for a very brief time
(e.g., long enough to quickly rinse shampoo out of their hair, or to give
them a swimming lesson about how to exhale underwater) is abusive per se.
Of course,
Eugene --
I don't think this makes sense because it posits an impossible universe of
zero-risk parenting. It is far riskier to drive your child on the freeway (not
to mention take him/her skiing, or letting him/her play soccer, or play
football (esp. in Texas)) than it is to baptize him/her. A
I would add to Chip's point that almost all of these cases would arise in state
court rather than federal court since they would for the most part deal with
domestic relations issues or state law tort claims.
See for example, In re Marriage of Boldt, 344 Or. 1, 176 P.3d 388 (Ore. 2008):
Alth
I appreciate Howard's point, but the question is: Why should
some children who by definition do not share a religious belief drown - or
otherwise be injured - for the sake of the beliefs of the adults who do have
that belief (and even for the sake of those children who, later in
What has been absent from all of the discussion on this issue is the importance
to Jewish belief of circumcision while the son is an infant. This ceremony at
8-days of age (except where health precludes it that early) is the son's
initiation into Jewish peoplehood. Waiting until adulthood is not
Or any cases where only one religion/belief was awarded by the court to the
parent who has custody over the right of the other parent to be a
parentthanks so much
From: Leslie Ruth
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:11 AM
To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: Amish vs English
Hi, looking for any case law in this country where the rights of the non
custodial parent (English) were trumped by the custodial parent (Amish). If
anyone could send me some case citings I can look them up myself. Thanks so
much.
___
To post, send
I don't know why we should be limited to the particulars of Supreme Court
decisions when we think about this. I suggest that the approach I outlined
is deeply embedded in the statutory and judge-made law of all the states.
And, if I'm right about, then the relevant constitutional doctrines of
subs
This raises a fascinating and practically very important
question (because there are more than 10 times as many American parents who
authorize circumcision for nonreligious reasons than for religious reasons):
Do Meyer/Pierce rights extend to the right to raise one's child in th
Chip writes that under our "tradition" (without regard to religious
liberty), "the state has the burden of proof that a practice is abusive.
So, when reasonable people can and do differ about the social, medical, or
hygienic benefits of a practice --as is obviously the case with infant male
circum
Here's an analogy from another area in which the normal rule -
one person may not alter or injure another's body without permission - is
relaxed: self-defense.
Say Vic is doing something that Don perceives as blasphemous,
but that might also be dangerous to Don o
We are making this so much more complicated than it has to be. I cannot
speak to the particulars of the case in Germany, so I won't try. But in
the U.S, we have a longstanding tradition, initially at common law and
ultimately in constitutional law (Pierce, Meyer, etc.) of parental control
over th
This strikes me as a textbook example of question-begging. It is precisely
what the "best interests of the child" are that is at issue, namely whether
social-cultural-religious factors should be considered and what weight they
should be given. This is exactly where you *don't* (or at least shouldn'
OK, let's turn this around again. I don't follow Eugene's reasoning here.
If I do for religious reasons what anyone else could do for secular
reasons, why should this be penalized? Seems like a fundamental
equal-treatment issue.
On the second paragraph, Eugene is correct that my point went to
inst
36 matches
Mail list logo
