Let me take up Chip's question.
I too accept Chip's point that the Establishment Clause encompasses certain
harms to the polity that occur when the government adopts a religious identity.
FWIW, on that basis among others, I joined a brief opposing the prayers in
Town of Greece, as well as fili
No apologies necessary, Alan. All of the points in your recent post --
that the Town of Greece prayer policy raises structural issues as well as
coercion/liberty issues , and that many on (and off) this list are quite
selective in the religious liberty concerns with which they sympathize --
are ex
I apologize to Chip for not responding earlier to his post. I think Chip makes
a very important point. There are profoundly important structural arguments
that justify challenging the Town of Greece's prayer policy. I did not intend
to suggest otherwise in my blog post. In addition to these stru
I thought there was a great deal of merit in Mark Scarberry's earlier post and
I appreciate the distinctions that Marty draws between lack of sincerity and
lack of depth and substantiality of religious belief. I have three thoughts.
First, since I know very little about Catholic theology or th
I take it that depends on what we mean by "not uncommon." A family of 15
children in mid-century America was a remarkable phenomenon, I can say from
experience. Not sure in what sense the Catholic Church was part of the
government when Ireland was for so long under the tyrannical British (not
Cat
Somebody had a column in Slate about how American businesses did not file
amicus briefs supporting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. He seemed to think
this somehow cut against them.
What it shows is that most businesses think they have no stake in this
litigation. They don't see any religious cl
I don't know how the argument about family size connects to the legal issues,
but for the record:
Marci's ten to twenty number is based on what demographers call "natural
fertility." That's where a couple makes no effort whatever to limit conception.
The phrase comes from my demographer wife, w
"My point is that for-profit businesses, corporate or not -- and their
owners/operators -- have never been entitled to religious exemptions from
generally applicable laws . That is to say, until this litigation they have
never prevailed under the FEC or RFRA."
I've just been a follower to
With all due respect to those disputing the numbers, families of the size I
mentioned were not uncommon before contraceptives were widely available, not
just
among Catholic families, but also other families. It was particularly common
in Ireland, where the Catholic Church was part of the govern
I agree with Rick on both points. (FWIW, in her book on Catholic teaching in
contraception, I believe Leslie Tentler identified 5-6 kids as the more
standard size for CathoIic families who followed Church teaching.) But I think
the issue becomes even more complicated once you move beyond avoid
I am aware of that, Mark. I hope I have not offended Catholics on this list by
raising this fact question. I married into a Philadelphia Irish
Catholic family and have Catholic clergy on my father's side. I was speaking
based on my experience with Catholic family, friends, neighbors.
In the
Whoops-- of course I meant Pope Francis. Sorry for the Freudian(?) slip.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Friedman, Howard M. [howard.fried...@utoledo.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:20 PM
To: Law &
Re Marci's assertion that the slippery slope is "perpendicular" if for profit
corporations are recognized to be protected under RFRA, it seems to me that we
don't have to just rely on the rhetorical speculation of Marci and the Obama
administration in its brief. Instead, we have, as Marty has he
Does anyone know whether the trustees of Notre Dame perhaps interpreted Pope
Benedict's remarks in his meeting with them in Rome on Jan. 31 as being a
reference to Notre Dame's position on the contraceptive mandate. The Pope said:
"This commitment to “missionary discipleship” ought to be reflec
Colleagues -
Two quick things: First, as Eduardo has said, the "cooperation with evil"
question is tricky and (he and I agree) debatable and debated among informed
Catholics. In my view, though (as Marty and I have discussed a few times), it
is incomplete to think about the burden the mandate
There is a huge difference between the Church's teaching on contraception
(which is clear), and its views on the permissibility of participating in an
insurance scheme that covers contraception for employees who would likely
already purchase it using their paychecks, let alone the permissibility
Let me add in response to Marci that the Catholic Church is not a democracy
(let alone a New England style direct democracy), nor, of course, does the 1st
Am. permit the government to treat it as a democracy. Statistics about beliefs
of American Catholics are essentially irrelevant.
Mark Scarbe
Two points of clarification that I think may be helpful:
1) One of the most important consequences of the HHS mandate is that a far
greater number of Catholics now have a better idea of what the Church's
teaching is on contraception and other life issues than they did before,
which makes the impos
I appreciate Marci's support on my other point, but I'm afraid I don't
agree that the views of American Catholics writ large is especially
relevant. It's no secret that most Catholics, including ND students and
faculty, disagree with ND's view, and with the Church's, on the morality of
contracepti
There is a doubt however about what American Catholics believe. They
overwhelmingly reject the church teaching against contraception. They don't
think they are sinners as Mark suggested. They reject it.
Every poll supports that as does the fact that it is rare to find a Catholic
family w 10
Yes, sorry if I was not clear: The point of my posts, both here and on the
blog, has been to question whether for-profit entities ever have, or
should, *prevail*, especially at the expense of third parties such as
employees. That is to say: whether the alternative "holding" in Part III
of *Lee*
I may have more to say on this point later, but for now this'll have to
suffice:
First, Doug may be correct that there is no doubt about what the Church's
teaching is about the morality of *contraception use. *But there sure is
plenty of doubt, as Eduardo noted, about whether the Church, or Notre
Fair enough. But they have been protected by statute.
If your original question went more to compelling interest than to
for-profit conscience, then I may have misunderstood the question.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
58
For what it's worth, I have never endorsed the argument that corporations,
for-profit or otherwise, cannot exercise religion and are thus
categorically outside the aegis of RFRA. To the contrary, "conscience" or
not, it seems plain to me that either the business or its closely held
owners can exer
No doubt the Board and senior administration speaks for Notre Dame. But on
faith and morals, they may (and may be expected to or required to) take their
guidance from the bishops. There is no doubt what the Church’s teaching is, and
no doubt that teaching is sincere. What I said was that Notre D
One issue is whether we ever protect the conscience of for-profit
organizations. We are told they dont have a conscience; they dont believe,
pray, worship, etc; they only maximize profits. Well they sometimes do have
a conscience, and at least where human life is at stake, we have laws that
recog
I think I'm all apples, Doug. In cases where the government has decided *that
commercial actors generally have an obligation that provides benefits
across-the-board* -- that the obligation to do X is now an ordinary
incident of commercial activity -- legislatures have not, or have rarely,
offered
Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame, as
opposed to its officials, and the officials' actions are irrelevant? And that
the actions of its co-religionist officials are irrelevant to proof of the
organization's beliefs? Why don't the practices of Notre Dame's
Marty, youre mixing apples and oranges. The distinctions you offer dont go
to willingness or unwillingness to protect for-profit entities.
There is a constitutional right to abortion. But no one is obligated to
provide one for a patient. And the conscience laws say that no one can
impose such
29 matches
Mail list logo
